{"took":113,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":29,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7509064","_score":18.026497,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint is to request assistance with two major issues caused by negligence or fraud on the part of Loan Depot. \n\nFirst, they approved me for a loan on XX/XX/XXXX, when I had not started a job and had no history of steady employment. I sent an offer letter for my new job starting XX/XX/XXXX. At the time Loan Depot approved me, I had less then three months of employment total between 4 or 5 companies over the preceding 6 months. When I did get started at the job, I texted my loan officer on XX/XX/XXXX that the job was over an hour away from the house I was purchasing. I let Loan Depot know my employment was not stable as I was constantly under threat of termination. I let Loan Depot know my first pay check was a week late and that the company was struggling to pay it's employees. I even mentioned I would likely be fired at the closing table when the closing meeting for the house took several hours longer than expected. I believe they used my wife 's income to artificial inflate my income to approve me, as she was working but has a XXXX credit score. When the house flooded severely with sewage, see below, I was not in a financial position to pay for all the renovations and discovered value of the house was substantially lower than the loan was approved for so I couldn't just sell the property. I am stuck because of the fraud or negligence that was perpetrated by Loan Depot in determining my ability to repay under Regulation Z. ( I've been learning quite a bit about banking laws in the last few weeks so forgive me if this reference is the incorrect statute. ) Other mortgage companies I've approached to try and buy another home have told my there is no way they would have approved me for the first loan, let alone a second even if I did sell the first home. \n\nThe second issue is that the value Loan Depot approved the loan for is at least {$100000.00} over the actual value of the home at the time of sale. Loan Depot hired an appraiser to determine the value of the property on XX/XX/XXXX. My wife and I were warned by our realtor that the property would likely not appraise at the value of the offer, in which case we would have walked away from the home. Instead, to everyone 's surprise, the appraiser set the value over our offer. Unknown to my wife and I, the property had been attempted to be sold in XXXX with one less bathroom. That sale attempted XXXX also included disclosures that the house had been renovated by the previous home owner including walls and plumbing. However no permits were acquired during the entire time the sellers owned the home. This information was available to Loan Depot through XXXX and the appraiser. These red flags were ignored by the appraiser and Loan Depot and none of this was included in the disclosures provided to me. I closed on the house on XX/XX/XXXX, and two days later on XX/XX/XXXX, the plumbing started flooding into the basement. During the mitigation process, I learned that the previous home owner had redone all the plumbing and electric in the property without permits or knowledge and that it regularly flooded. The plumbing was done so poorly the house was filling with sewer fumes and I had to move out on XX/XX/XXXX. I can provide the letter confirming this from a plumber. The electric was so poorly done, I've been advised not to turn on the electric or risk burning down the home. To correct the situation, the house must be taken down to the studs and all plumbing and electric must be replaced. My insurance company has threated to drop me for the claims stemming from these issues and when shopping for a new insurance company, they indicated at first they couldn't insure the house for more that {$80000.00} as that is all the house is actually worth. This value issue could have easily been identified going into this deal by not ignoring the changes in the property value from the last listing and the changes in the listing itself. \n\nIt is our understanding under 84 FR 31173 Loan Depot must determine the value of the home using safe and sound banking practices. We believe they intentionally omitted information relating to the value of the home in order to ensure the deal would go through as they were aware I couldn't pay the difference. Willfully overvaluing property regarding a loan, to an FDIC-insured bank, for the purpose of influencing the bank 's actions is also a violation 18 U.S.C. 1014. \n\nI have asked for their help in correcting the fraud. I've tried to discuss options to mitigate the damage of their misrepresentations such as a deed in lieu of foreclosure. I've tried to negotiate with the seller. Ultimately, the seller and Loan depot acted in concert, both profiting from their misrepresentations, and I request the CFPB 's assistance in unwinding the deal as it failed to meet Reg z and it included willfully overvalued property.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-09-06T23:49:22.000Z","issue":"Closing on a mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"554XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7509064","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"LD Holdings Group, LLC","date_received":"2023-09-06T22:33:18.000Z","state":"MN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue with the loan closing"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This <em>value</em> issue could have easily been identified going into this deal by not ignoring the changes in the property <em>value</em> from the last listing and the changes in the listing itself. \n\nIt is our understanding under 84 FR 31173 Loan Depot must determine the <em>value</em> of the home using safe and sound banking practices. We believe they intentionally omitted information relating to the <em>value</em> of the home in order to ensure the deal would go <em>through</em> as they were aware I couldn't pay the difference."]},"sort":[18.026497,"7509064"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16870494","_score":15.833945,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"I am the owner of a small neighborhood bakery in XXXX XXXX XXXX. On XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX an unknown individual stole my payment terminal directly from the counter inside my business. The terminal was linked to my Bank of America Merchant Services account ( XXXX  by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nImmediately after noticing the theft, I began calling Bank of Americas business support line to report it. I made four separate calls between XXXXXXXX XXXX. and XXXXXXXX XXXX the same day. In each attempt : The automated system redirected me to recorded messages only. \n\nWhen choosing the Business option, I was informed that support was only available Monday through Friday during business hours. \n\nNo live representative was available, and no emergency reporting option was provided for after-hours incidents. \n\n\nI have records of each of these calls, including timestamps, which demonstrate my attempt to take immediate action. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX Unauthorized Activity and Timeline XXXX, XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I logged into my Bank of America app and discovered a negative transfer of {$10000.00} from my business account. \n\nI called Bank of America again, this time through the credit card department ( the only department open XXXX ). \n\nA representative answered but stated that they could not access business accounts. \n\nI was told to wait until the business department reopened on XXXX. \n\n\nXXXX, XX/XX/XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  : I received a call from the bank acknowledging unusual account activity. They stated that they would block the machine. However, the representative informed me that the situation was my responsibility, despite my prior calls. \n\nXXXX, XX/XX/XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  : Another unauthorized withdrawal appeared for {$7000.00}. \n\n\nIn total, over {$17000.00} USD was withdrawn from my account in less than XXXX hours through refunds made on a stolen terminal. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX  Key Facts and Irregularities XXXX. Failure to provide after-hours fraud reporting for business customers. \n\nNo emergency or fraud reporting system was available on weekends for merchant accounts, even though the risk of theft or fraud is XXXX \n\n\n\nXXXX. No transaction verification or fraud filters triggered, despite : A sudden pattern of refunds totaling over {$17000.00}. \n\nMy average daily sales are under {$200.00}, and the average individual transaction is under {$20.00}. \n\nThis change in transaction behavior is statistically irregular and should have automatically triggered a fraud or risk hold. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Failure to match refund destinations. \n\nThe fraudulent refunds were not linked to the original sales cards, meaning the system allowed refunds to unrelated accounts or new cards, which violates standard PCI and acquirer-level risk controls. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Failure to verify device status before processing high-value refunds. \n\nOnce I reported ( through multiple calls ) that the terminal was stolen, the system should have required a device check-in or password re-authentication before allowing further transactions. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Delayed fraud mitigation. \n\nEven after the banks own team called me at XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX to acknowledge unusual activity, The first fraudulent refund had already occurred XXXX hours earlier. \n\nAnother refund of {$7000.00} occurred XXXX hours after that call, meaning the terminal was never actually blocked when they said it was. \n\n\n\n\nXXXX. Failure to provide timely human response. \n\nA financial institution of Bank of Americas size should have a 24/7 fraud line for business clients.\n\nMy repeated attempts to report the theft on the same day were ignored due to limited service hours.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-28T17:48:11.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"90023","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16870494","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-10-28T16:30:08.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This change in transaction behavior is statistically irregular and should have automatically triggered a fraud or <em>risk</em> hold. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Failure to match refund destinations. \n\nThe fraudulent refunds were not linked to the original sales cards, meaning the system allowed refunds to unrelated accounts or new cards, which violates standard PCI and acquirer-level <em>risk</em> controls. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Failure to verify device status before processing high-<em>value</em> refunds."]},"sort":[15.833945,"16870494"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14587260","_score":14.70525,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern : I am writing to file a formal complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX cryptocurrency exchange, regarding a series of unjustified account restrictions that resulted in significant financial losses to my retirement savings. \nI have been a customer of XXXX  since XX/XX/XXXX, during which time I invested retirement funds through an account maintained on their platform. I fully complied with XXXX identity and security protocols, including biometric verification ( selfies ) and multi-factor authentication ( 2FA ), in accordance with their User Agreement. \nDespite my compliance, my account was repeatedly subjected to prolonged and unexplained restrictionsbeginning on or around XX/XX/XXXX until XXXX this year, followed by a XXXX XXXX sell-off. This restriction was imposed during a period of heightened market volatility and remained in effect until XX/XX/XXXX. After this, subsequent restrictions were imposed and lifted under similar conditions, the last occurring in XXXX of this year. \nAs reflected in the attached account statements : My available balance as of XX/XX/XXXX, was {$52000.00} By the end of XX/XX/XXXX, the balance had declined to {$30000.00} This represents a reduction of {$21000.00} during the first restricted period However, this figure does not fully capture the extent of the loss. Internal account data shows that the value of my assets temporarily rose to {$68000.00} in XX/XX/XXXX. Because I was unable to access my account or take protective action, I missed the opportunity to preserve those gains, bringing the actual financial impact to approximately {$38000.00}. Affected assets include ( but are not limited to ) : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  does not provide a stop-loss feature or similar tools to mitigate risks during such account freezes. Had this been availableor had its absence been clearly disclosed in the User AgreementI could have taken timely steps to protect my retirement assets. \nIn total, I experienced this pattern of restriction at least XXXX times, starting in XXXX. These repeated and unexplained account blocks resulted in additional cumulative losses of {$9300.00}, raising the total estimated loss to {$47000.00}. \nMoreover : The Respondent failed to offer a clear reason for the restrictions, citing only vague security confidential validations No expected timeline or communication was provided Account access was restored only after the market stabilized When I was finally able to access my account, I faced additional fees due to XXXX  limited XXXX  conversion optionsanother issue not fully disclosed in the User Agreement These actions raise serious concerns about XXXX  liquidity, market manipulation, transparency, infringement of consumer protection laws, and internal risk practices. The unexplained timing of the restrictions, particularly during moments of extreme market volatility, suggests a pattern of conduct that unfairly harms consumersespecially those like me who have entrusted the platform with retirement funds. \nI find the defendants conduct increasingly concerning and, frankly, evasiveseemingly intended to stall the proceedings, perhaps to gain time ahead of their upcoming IPO while obscuring unfair practices directed at consumers, particularly older individuals like myself. \nIn conclusion, XXXX  blocked my accountcontaining my retirement savingsduring a period of high market volatility, preventing me from withdrawing my assets or setting a stop-loss to mitigate the losses. Once the volatility subsided, the restriction was lifted with no further explanation, but by then, the damage had already been done. \nThis conduct raises serious concerns about whether XXXX  had sufficient liquidity to meet its obligations had clients attempted to liquidate during those critical periods. The actual damages are clear : financial loss resulting from missed investment opportunities and the inability to move or preserve funds. \nI respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau investigate this matter and hold XXXX  accountable for its conduct. I also ask that the CFPB consider referring the matter to other relevant agencies or encouraging mediation between myself and the company. I am prepared to provide supporting documents, including account statements and correspondence, upon request. \nThank you for your attention to this serious matter. \nSincerely,","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-12T00:33:43.000Z","issue":"Money was not available when promised","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"770XX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14587260","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Winklevoss Exchange LLC","date_received":"2025-07-12T00:24:45.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I have been a customer of XXXX  since XX/XX/XXXX, during which time I invested retirement funds <em>through</em> an account maintained on their platform. I fully complied with XXXX identity and security protocols, <em>including</em> biometric verification ( selfies ) and multi-factor authentication ( 2FA ), in accordance with their User Agreement."]},"sort":[14.70525,"14587260"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5915544","_score":14.51291,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"In the past 30 years, my wife and I have lived in our single home, but economic and health reasons have prevented us from continuing to pay our mortgage. After a long process in court and trying to modify our loan, we realized that we would not be able to continue as my health has deteriorated and is at risk. Because of a lack of specialists in XXXX XXXX, I must be operated outside the island. We will move to the United States for my treatment and stay with our oldest son.In the midst of all these events, we found ourselves with the sad reality that we would have to leave our home, and our daughter offered to buy it for a \" short sale '' with her husband. Our bank informed us that doing a short sale with a family member is not a problem since our loan is a portfolio loan. Following this information, we formally submitted the short sale offer to the bank on XX/XX/2022, through our broker.A short sale offer of {$39000.00} dollars was submitted ( appraisal value was {$39000.00} in XX/XX/2022 ). After the offer was sent, it wasn't until XX/XX/2022, that they notified our broker that they had received all the documents and that they would respond shortly.Despite constant communication regarding the offer, our broker received an email dated XXXX stating that the Short Sale offer was denied because they would not accept asale through a family member. It took us by surprise since at all times we were told familiarity wasn't an obstacle, a real deal had been offered and all documents had been sent. Our broker informed the bank that the second mortgage agreed to cancel the lien at a much lower value than the balance owed.Our broker requested reconsideration of the refusal after receiving the refusal, notifying us that familiarity was not a valid reason. A new title search was ordered by the bank ( we had never been informed about this ), which indicated that a new promissory note had to be canceled in order to submit the reconsideration.In response to the broker 's email regarding the promissory note, we informed them that we were not aware of the issue, but we were seeking the notary who signed the deed, and we are currently trying to identify the promissory note if the judicial route does not seem to cancel it. This new promissory note was not reported in the denial of the offer.So things immediately, our broker last XX/XX/2022, sent a reply to the bank by email indicating that the steps were being taken to obtain the promissory note that in what this was, we requested that the reconsideration be submitted and the offer be accepted. We promised to obtain the promissory noteor failing that, assume the expenses of ajudicial process in case of having to do it that XXXX XX/XX/2022, our broker has continued to take steps to obtain a response from the bank and it is only today that the attorney who is handling the case in Court submits a Motion to foreclose the property, even though the bank has not responded to our request for reconsideration and there is a negotiation in progress.This bank 's actions have been malicious, and we feel betrayed. Our case was under consideration, but we discovered that it is in the process of being foreclosed. There has been no compliance with the laws governing Loss Mitigation processes, including Law 184, 169, and Regulation X, which affect our rights to be treated fairly.We only want to avoid foreclosure and sell our property. We would appreciate if you could investigate the bank 's process in our case and assist us in getting the support we need to sell our home.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-08-25T04:22:25.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"00926","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5915544","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"PLANET HOME LENDING, LLC","date_received":"2022-08-25T03:54:47.000Z","state":"PR","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Following this information, we formally submitted the short sale offer to the bank on XX/XX/2022, <em>through</em> our broker.A short sale offer of {$39000.00} dollars was submitted ( appraisal <em>value</em> was {$39000.00} in XX/XX/2022 )."]},"sort":[14.51291,"5915544"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6320590","_score":13.501825,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"My mortgage has been in forbearance since XX/XX/XXXX, for a total of XXXX months. During that time, I reached out to Wells Fargo via mail to ask for a copy of my contract with my signature agreeing to pay them as they are not the original lenders that I contracted with. They send a partial copy ( not the whole contract ). XXXX XXXX XXXX is on my paperwork and my promissory note as well. That means the promissory note was transferred to Wells Fargo by XXXX XXXX XXXX and that was the payment for the house! \n\nAccording to 12 U.S.C 1813 L/1 ( l ) Deposit The term deposit means ( 1 ) the unpaid balance of money or its equivalent received or held by a bank or savings association in the usual course of business and for which it has given or is obligated to give credit, either conditionally or unconditionally, to a commercial, checking, savings, time, or thrift account, or which is evidenced by its certificate of deposit, thrift certificate, investment certificate, certificate of indebtedness, or other similar name, or a check or draft drawn against a deposit account and certified by the bank or savings association , or a letter of credit or a travelers check on which the bank or savings association is primarily liable : Provided, That, without limiting the generality of the term money or its equivalent, any such account or instrument must be regarded as evidencing the receipt of the equivalent of money when credited or issued in exchange for checks or drafts or for a promissory note upon which the person obtaining any such credit or instrument is primarily or secondarily liable, or for a charge against a deposit account, or in settlement of checks, drafts, or other instruments forwarded to such bank or savings association for collection. \n\nThis can be found the XXXX form pg. XXXX for Wells Fargo & Company SEC reporting REPURCHASE AND SECURITIES LENDING AGREEMENTS Securities sold under repurchase agreements and securities lending arrangements are effectively short-term collateralized borrowings. In these transactions, we receive cash in exchange for transferring securities as collateral and recognize an obligation to reacquire the securities for cash at the transactions maturity. These types of transactions create risks, including ( XXXX ) the counterparty may fail to return the securities at maturity, ( XXXX ) the fair value of the securities transferred may decline below the amount of our obligation to reacquire the securities, and therefore, create an obligation for us to pledge additional amounts, and ( XXXX ) the counterparty may accelerate the maturity on demand, requiring us to reacquire the security prior to contractual maturity. We attempt to mitigate these risks in various ways. Our collateral primarily consists of highly liquid securities. In addition, we underwrite and monitor the financial strength of our counterparties, monitor the fair value of collateral pledged relative to contractually required repurchase amounts, and monitor that our collateral is properly returned through the clearing and settlement process in advance of our cash repayment. Table XXXX provides the gross amounts recognized on the consolidated balance sheet ( before the effects of offsetting ) of our liabilities for repurchase and securities lending agreements disaggregated by underlying collateral type. \nXXXX Wells Fargo & Company A misrepresentation is a false or misleading statement or a material omission which renders other statements misleading, with intent to deceive. Misrepresentation is XXXX the elements of common law fraud, and other causes of action for fraud, such as securities fraud. \n\nI have reached out to Wells Fargo in regard to the billing errors that have been sent me stating that owe a debt and is behind on my mortgage payments. They are threating to go into foreclose if I don't pay {$21.00}, XXXX amount by XX/XX/XXXX. Even before the payments were over, they offered mortgage assistance as I told them I have no income, but they took my application with my ssn and signature on it which is form of security and denied me assistance. Now they have my application/security and haven't given me assistance. The statements they send me are in a positive number so i do not agree to any alleged debt. They would have to prove to me that I owe a debt to them. \n\n15 U.S.C 1666, Truth in Lending Act Regulation Z ( 15 U.S.C 1666-1666j ), 12 CFR 1026.13, Equal Credit Opportunity Act","date_sent_to_company":"2022-12-15T00:07:21.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"30180","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6320590","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2022-12-14T22:06:42.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["We attempt to <em>mitigate</em> these <em>risks</em> in various ways. Our collateral primarily consists of highly liquid securities. In addition, we underwrite and monitor the financial strength of our counterparties, monitor the fair <em>value</em> of collateral pledged relative to contractually required repurchase amounts, and monitor that our collateral is properly returned <em>through</em> the clearing and settlement process in advance of our cash repayment."]},"sort":[13.501825,"6320590"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3831937","_score":12.301761,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CA XXXX To ; Loss Mitigation Department MECHANICS BANK OFFICE AT XXXX. XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, NV XXXX IN REGARDS TO SETTLEMENT OFFER PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL MECHANICS BANK XXXX   XXXX  Powered by Mechanics Bank PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL Accordingly, my wife XXXX XXXX and I have suffered from this Pandemic with the hardships of the loss of our employment, thus setting us back with rents due and bills. Nonetheless, with our family of XXXX  boys and seeking to keep nutrition and schooling as an emphasis on the same level, practice social distancing as indicated in accordance by the\n\nState of California whereby we reside. However, the  complications of all the above -stated are now considerable problems. In this case, I demand justification for this unjustified repossession. Thereby with remarks previously mailed retaining our family automobile During the coronavirus emergency will, in turn, puts us AT-RISk to containing the virus. Shall we take legal action under this review under the Executive State mandate by the State of California inclined liability for monetary recovery for my family 's pain and suffering thereof, and notwithstanding the covered cost of the vehicle. Furthermore, Attorney fees and expenses for controlling the worldwide pandemic. \nSimilarly, the media interest will gain insight into how consumers ' rights matter. I advise before my Lawyers look at this point. Kindly release The vehicle with no difficulty as soon as possible. By the next business day, which means  today is XX/XX/2020. \n\nHowever, I sent XXXX XXXX a proposed letter for a payoff amount, including notification of our hardship due to the livelihood of employment loss in Regards To COVID-19. Nevertheless, I never received a call or mail of Attention to mediate. It stands the reason your company was offering three months of extensions to other customers, but I was never provided this upheaval. Further, just comprising my family by maliciously cultivating a plan to take advantage of by towing our family automobile in the middle of the Night. Communication would be the best business practice to  take a step in the right direction. Now, legal actions should transpire, rendering Overwhelming measures of suffering preceded my household.. Nonetheless, our family will suffer from the results thereof and comprise legal action against your organization during a time of emergency implication to Federal and State Legislature the CDC Occupational Health and Safety A formal complaint will Inform me.  Accordingly, repossessing my family vehicle injured us for social distancing, drive-through testing, and grocery shopping. Retains have been repossessed. Nevertheless, I asked by a letter During the coronavirus emergency ; cars will play a vital role in containing the spread of the virus and facilitating an economic recovery for families and states. A family car can allow for social distancing, drive-through testing, and shopping for essential items without taking municipal transportation. After the initial health crisis, a car will once again be vital in many communities for access to employment sent USPS ( attached ) asking for help from the bank furnishing cooperation when my family indeed needs support. \n\n. Additional Knowledge shall be indeed acknowledged that encompass that my history of duration of the loan was clarified to prevail excellent payment history until the hardship occurred, therefore justifying the hardship of the Pandemic was indeed the reason why, during this period It is vital that we are withstanding the epidemic. \n\nVehicles are essential commodities as family automobiles. Indeed, the crucial means for purpose in prevailing over the coronavirus crisis ; Whereas taking away and reposing will exploit social distancing and furthermore comprising the possess. For incorporating the State of California Mandated social distancing.\n\nThis, please contact me in implication of the virus and facilitating a monetary value of shall accordingly be deemed illicit for hereafter investigation into the matter by CFPB indications.\n\nEncouraging Health & Safety, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2020-09-04T10:43:02.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay your loan","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"93422","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3831937","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"MECHANICS BANK","date_received":"2020-09-04T09:11:55.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Denied request to lower payments"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This, please contact me in implication of the virus and facilitating a monetary <em>value</em> of shall accordingly be deemed illicit for hereafter investigation into the matter by CFPB indications.\n\nEncouraging Health & Safety, XXXX XXXX"]},"sort":[12.301761,"3831937"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2644395","_score":11.214231,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX XXXX QWR NOTICE OF ERROR Loan : XXXX Subject Property : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Ohio XXXX Owner XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Last 4 of XXXX XXXX Mailing address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Ohio XXXX. Ref : CFPB report XXXX I filed a Notice of error attachment XXXX Notice of Error along with all of my statements that the loan servicing company XXXX XXXX was attempting to collect Discharged Bankruptcy  Debt. Each of the exhibits I presented in this attachment listed a cram down debt that was not collectable and illegal to ask for. See attachments in report XXXX. Shell point responded to my Notice of Error with a correspondence letter on XX/XX/XXXX. Per this letter shell point states Shellpoint acknowledges your concerns regarding the history of the debt. Reviewing the loans history indicates that we previously received similar inquires. We have enclosed those responses, as we believe they have been address the majority of your concerns. As conveyed in the attached, Shellpoint confirmed that the previous mortgage servicers updated the loans terms to reflect those stipulated in the Reaffirmation Agreement. In an attempt to clarify just what Shellpoint is stating I am break this statement down so that we can see how Shellpoint dictated this letter what I believe was in a vague almost deceptive path on the facts and responsibilities of the loan servicer I had brought to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and their loan servicing companys Shellpoints attention. Shellpoint acknowledges your concerns regarding the history of the debt. Reviewing the loans history indicates that we previously received similar inquires. At this point Shellpoint has reviewed my loan and studied the exhibits and now acknowledges on record that the previous loan processor has been in violation of the CFPB and the Bankruptcy code by listing and demanding the discharged debt on the 30 plus statements and also in a payoff statement that I provided in my CFPB report XXXX. We have enclosed those responses, as we believe they have been address the majority of your concerns. Okay so nothing new to state just the something that was stated before but now Shellpoint has the an issue and under the loan assumptions rules per the CFPB this now is the new investors XXXX aka XXXX XXXX problem. I have now forwarded all of the illegal statements with my supporting evidence of the violations on my loan. As conveyed in the attached, Shellpoint confirmed that the previous mortgage servicers updated the loanss terms to reflect those stipulated in the Reaffirmation Agreement. And here it is Shellpoint finally confirms that the loan was updated by the pervious servicer to reflect the court order reaffirmation agreement the only thing that they so deceptively or vaguely forgot to mention was that it was not updated until XX/XX/XXXX which was 5 years after it was court order and filed by a federal JUDGE. Companys responsibility to comply with the Non-Performing Loan sales rules and regulations per the loss waterfall mitigation and abide by correct and if need be settle any disputes as follow all my properties are post XX/XX/XXXX. I have highlighted in red a portion of the Rules and Regulations that are not being followed by Shellpoint or XXXX aka XXXX XXXX. I have had 6 loans make there was through the NPL non-performing loan sales at which XXXX received the winning bid on all 6. Below I have included the outline for the sales requirements. Fact Sheet NON-PERFORMING LOAN ( NPL ) SALE REQUIREMENTS XX/XX/XXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, the Federal Housing Finance Agency ( FHFA ) announced enhanced non-performing loan ( NPL ) requirements for sales of NPLs by XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX ( the Enterprises ) that will reduce risk to taxpayers by transferring it to the private sector. FHFA believes that the sale of severely delinquent loans through NPL sales will reduce Enterprise losses and improve borrower and neighborhood outcomes. The enhanced NPL sale requirements draw upon the experience of XXXX XXXX two pilot sales of NPLs last year and this year. The loans in these two transactions have an aggregate value of approximately one billion dollars in unpaid principal balance. The loans included in NPL sales will generally be severely delinquent typically more than one year past due. FHFAs goal is to achieve more favorable outcomes for the Enterprises and for borrowers by providing alternatives to foreclosure wherever possible. In addition, reporting by servicers on borrower outcomes will be required after the transactions close, which will allow the Enterprises to document whether the desired outcomes are being achieved. Future NPL sales by the Enterprises must meet the enhanced requirements, which include the following : Bidder qualifications : Bidders will be required to identify their servicing partners at the time of qualification and must complete a servicing questionnaire to demonstrate a record of successful resolution of loans through alternatives to foreclosure ; Modification requirements : The new servicer will be required to evaluate all pre-XX/XX/XXXX borrowers ( other than those whose foreclosure sale date is imminent or whose property is vacant ) for the U.S. Department of the Treasurys Making Home Affordable programs, including the Home Affordable Modification Program ( HAMP ). All post-XX/XX/XXXX borrowers ( other than those with an imminent foreclosure sale date or vacant property ) must be evaluated for a proprietary modification. Proprietary modifications must not include an upfront fee or require prepayment of any amount of mortgage debt, and must provide a benefit to the borrower with the potential for a sustainable modification ; Loss mitigation waterfall requirements : Servicers must apply a waterfall of resolution tactics that includes evaluating borrower eligibility for a loan modification ( HAMP and/or proprietary modification ), a short sale, and a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure. Foreclosure must be the last option in the waterfall. The waterfall may consider net present value to the investor ; REO sale requirements : Servicers are encouraged to sell properties that have gone through foreclosure and entered Real Estate Owned ( REO ) status to individuals who will occupy the property as their primary residence or to non-profits. For the first 20 days after any NPL that becomes an REO property is marketed, the property may be sold only to buyers who intend to occupy the property as their primary residence or to non-profits ; Subsequent servicer requirements : Subsequent servicers must assume the responsibilities of the initial servicer ; Bidding transparency : To facilitate transparency of the NPL sales program and encourage robust participation by all interested participants, each Enterprise will develop a process for announcing upcoming NPL sale offerings. This will include an NPL webpage on the Enterprises website, email distribution to small, non-profit and minority- and women-owned business ( MWOB ) investors, and proactive outreach to potential bidders. Additionally, each Enterprise will host training sessions for interested non-profit and MWOB investors to facilitate better understanding of the NPL sales process. The Enterprises will also offer small pools of NPLs, where feasible ; Reporting requirements : NPL buyers and servicers, including subsequent servicers, are required to report loan resolution results and borrower outcomes to the Enterprises for four years after the NPL sale. These reports will help inform whether to make future changes to NPL sales requirements and determine whether an NPL buyer and NPL servicer continue to be eligible for future sales based on pool level borrower outcomes, adjusted for subsequent market events. Consistent with applicable law, FHFA and/or the Enterprises will provide public reports on aggregate borrower outcomes at the pool level. Fannie Mae : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  have seen a history of improper implantation of the NPL regulations by Shellpoint and XXXX both not acknowledging inaccuracies of the pervious loan servicer and when I disclosed to them in a CFPB report neither are mitigating to a mutual beneficial conclusion on post-XX/XX/XXXX debt as per the rules state that borrowers ( other than those with an imminent foreclosure sale date or vacant property ) must be evaluated for a proprietary modification. For example in XX/XX/XXXX I had a loan on a property purchased by XXXX at that time the loan did not have an imminent foreclosure sale date but was under litigation and the property was occupied not vacant. Neither XXXX nor Shellpoint ever notified the court about the sale of the note or the transfer of the mortgage servicing rights from XXXX to Shellpoint. I believe that this should have been disclosed to the courts within maximum 90 days of the sale the least. But Shellpoint only contacted the lawyer that was representing the previous loan servicer and kept moving forward towards procuring an imminent sale date still using XXXX name filing documents in the case as though they still had an interest in the property. I was not asked or informed of any modifications options or loss mitigation options. I was backed into a corner by Shell point and the investor XXXX making it clear that all of the serious illegal issues that I had with the previous loan servicer such as asking for and listing on my monthly statements discharged bankruptcy  debt was being ignored by Shellpoint and XXXX. The day before the sale I received a call from shell point offering a short sale option. I believe this was offed because the property was only appraised for half of what they were asking for and if sold at the sheriffs sale the property might have sold for less. This complete neglect of the NPL rules cost both me and the XXXX time and money. Shell point did not follow the NPL sales rules of loss mitigation on my loan in XX/XX/XXXX and has failed again as of today forcing my hand to again to file a complaint for the reasons of : 1. I have not been given a modification that makes sense. The offer that was presented would only serve the investor with me no way out of the property. The offer was the investor taking any money allegedly owed on the note adding it to the principle balance which was doubling the amount of the note to {$65000.00}. The investor and Shell point listed a payment of {$400.00} dollars a month and stated that if I made 3 monthly payments they would permanently modify my mortgage loan. I found an issue here Shell point failed to list an interest rate or any terms with this proposal and when I contacted Shell point about my concerns I was refused the agreement and was never given another option. 2. I received a letter from Shell point stating that the investor would not accept a deed in lieu of foreclosure now leaving me now with only litigation cost piling up daily. But whats interesting is that I never offered them one. 3. I did offer a short sale to the investor to get out of the loan. Shell point denied the offer and would not even counter. This type of action would only constitute that the investor has 1. No real idea of the value of the property. 2. Has not been notified by Shell point of the pervious loan servicers mismanagement of my loan in which now they have assumed the responsibility of per the NPL sales rule Subsequent servicer requirements : Subsequent servicers must assume the responsibilities of the initial servicer ; and by incompetence of not compiling to the Bankruptcy code and CFPB rules or at least the making some kind of sanction or adjustment in my favor on my loan in good faith for the mismanagement of my loan to accommodate me and get this loan back on track. CONCLUSION : As of today Shell point and XXXX has once again taken the complete opposite direction of the rules and regulations of the NPL sales. They have manipulated the courts the NPL and CFPB rules that govern my loans in their favor to position themselves to take the property and back me into a corner. I only have one loan let with this servicer and investor so if a war is what they are wanting I will have them explaining their actions to a Bankruptcy Judge. I feel that if XXXX aka XXXX XXXX and Shellpoint has been clever enough to figure out how to move though the system without being detected of any wrong doing someone needs to blow the whistle on these illegal actions. Again I have listed all of my Exhibits in a previous report XXXX which was either ignored or vaguely glanced at by Shell point and XXXX leaving issues half explained away but never resolved. XXXX XXXX XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2017-08-22T18:30:25.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"45042","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2644395","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","date_received":"2017-08-22T17:41:09.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Debt was already discharged in bankruptcy and is no longer owed"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["No real idea of the <em>value</em> of the property. 2."]},"sort":[11.214231,"2644395"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19886077","_score":11.075238,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Company : Regions Bank Product : Mortgage Issue : Loan modification failures, loss mitigation errors, foreclosure process concerns, and denial of successor-in-interest rights Complaint Narrative I am filing this formal complaint regarding Regions Banks handling of my mortgage loan following the death of my father on XX/XX/XXXX. The mortgage loan was solely in his name at the time of his passing. I believe Regions Bank engaged in improper mortgage servicing practices, wrongfully denied my successor-in-interest rights, failed to properly administer loss mitigation, and implemented abusive and unsustainable loan modification terms that have placed my family at extreme risk of XXXX. \n\nAssumption of Mortgage Payments After My Fathers Death Upon my fathers death on XX/XX/XXXX, I immediately assumed responsibility for the mortgage payment in the amount of {$840.00} per month. I consistently made these payments from XX/XX/XXXX, through XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, I was unable to make the monthly payment. As a XXXX  XXXX  of XXXX XXXX  childrenall of whom have XXXX  in XXXX was forced to prioritize essential family obligations during a period of financial strain. Shortly thereafter, my health declined significantly, resulting in reduced work hours and ultimately my inability to continue working. As a result, my financial circumstances deteriorated rapidly, and my household bills accumulated substantially. \n\nThroughout this period, I maintained communication with Regions Bank and repeatedly expressed my financial hardship. \n\nFinancial Hardship and Successor-in-Interest Denial My financial hardship was compounded by several factors : The emotional and financial burden following my fathers death My assumption of his outstanding bills and debts The fact that I relinquished my own residence prior to his death in order to care for him in his home, in accordance with his wishes From XX/XX/XXXX, through XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXa period of approximately eighteen monthsRegions Bank refused to recognize me as successor-in-interest. During this time, I made repeated attempts to provide documentation establishing my legal right to assume responsibility for the loan. \n\nRegions Bank insisted that I obtain and submit formal legal documentation prepared by an attorney, including but not limited to an affidavit of heirship, letters of administration, letters testamentary, or probate court documentation. I did not have the financial means to retain an attorney to initiate probate proceedings or prepare such documents. \n\nNevertheless, I consulted with an attorney, who personally contacted Regions Bank on XX/XX/XXXX. Regions refused to discuss any account-related matters with her. On XX/XX/XXXX, I provided Regions with the following documentation : My fathers original will, which clearly names me as his sole heir and beneficiary A certified copy of his death certificate A copy of my drivers license Completed successor-in-interest documentation as requested Despite receiving these materials, Regions continued to deny my successor-in-interest status and refused to communicate with me regarding the loan. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, during a phone call with a customer service representative identified as XXXX, I was informedfor the first timethat my birth certificate could be used to verify my identity and confirm my relationship to my father. This information had never previously been disclosed to me. Once I provided my birth certificate, Regions immediately approved my successor-in-interest status and began communicating with me regarding the loan. \n\nThis sequence of events demonstrates that Regions had the ability to verify my status well before XX/XX/XXXX but failed to do so, resulting in unnecessary delinquency and foreclosure escalation. \n\nPrevention of Payments and Foreclosure Escalation Throughout the period in which Regions refused to recognize me as successor-in-interest, the bank would not : Provide the exact amount owed Accept payments from me unless I already knew the precise total due Discuss loss mitigation options As a result, I was effectively prevented from making paymentsnot due to unwillingness, but because Regions refused to provide the information necessary to do so. \n\nDuring this time, the loan accrued delinquency and was ultimately referred to foreclosure. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, my boyfriend moved into the home and began contributing 100 % of his earnings toward household expenses. I continued my efforts to resolve the mortgage and assume legal responsibility as the sole heir. Despite my consistent attempts over more than a year, Regions refused to cooperate until after foreclosure proceedings had begun. \n\nTrial Loan Modification and Payment Increase Following referral to foreclosure, Regions offered a trial loan modification in XX/XX/XXXX requiring three monthly payments of {$920.00}. I made all three trial payments on time and in full. \n\nAfter the third and final trial payment in late XX/XX/XXXX, I was notifiedwith less than one weeks noticethat my new permanent monthly payment beginning in XXXX would increase to {$1200.00}. \n\nI immediately informed Regions that this payment amount was not affordable for my household. Due to the sudden and substantial increase, I was unable to make the XXXX payment. \n\nIn XXXX, I was notified that my loan modification had been terminated and that I owed approximately {$12000.00} immediately. I was instructed to reapply for financial assistance but was told that my chances of approval were slim to none because I had failed a prior modificationdespite having successfully completed all three required trial payments. \n\nAdditionally, the three trial payments totaling {$2700.00} were not clearly applied to reduce the loan balance, arrears, or any identifiable portion of the debt. No representative could explain how these funds were applied. To date, there has been no transparent accounting for these payments. \n\nSecond Loan Modification Offer In XX/XX/XXXX, I reapplied for financial assistance and submitted all requested hardship documentation. In XX/XX/XXXX, Regions offered a new loan modification with a monthly payment of $ XXXXan amount even higher than the prior payment they acknowledged I could not afford. \n\nThe proposed modification terms include : A 40-year loan 4.75 % interest rate Approximate principal balance of {$120000.00} Monthly payment of {$1200.00} Based on the loan balance and interest rate, this payment appears mathematically unreasonable and suggests the inclusion of excessive escrow requirements, capitalized arrears, and fees structured in a manner that maximizes recovery for Regions Bank rather than providing a sustainable and affordable solution.\n\nThe home has a tax-assessed value of approximately {$500000.00}, resulting in nearly {$380000.00} in equity. Regions informed me that this equity can not be used unless I sell the home. However, I can not sell the home because the property remains titled in my deceased fathers name.\n\nDespite the substantial equity cushion and documented hardship, Regions refused to structure a realistic and affordable repayment plan.\n\nConduct of Loss Mitigation Personnel During discussions with Loss Mitigation Manager XXXX XXXX, I was told directly that it was time to find somewhere else to live if I could not afford the offered payment, and that there was nothing more Regions would do to assist me. This statement was made despite my ongoing efforts, documented hardship, and repeated requests for meaningful assistance. \n\nCurrent Hardship Circumstances My household is currently experiencing the following hardships : I am unable to work and am awaiting a determination on XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  My boyfriends work hours have been significantly reduced due to weather conditions and lack of available work I receive no child support for my XXXX XXXX  children Monthly electric bills range from {$500.00} {$600.00} or more Burst pipes during freezing weather caused extreme water bills that we can not afford to repair We have no family support and no alternative housing options Despite these circumstances, Regions has repeatedly offered loan modifications with payments far beyond our means and has terminated assistance when we were unable to comply. \n\nBasis of Complaint Based on the foregoing, I believe Regions Bank has : Wrongfully denied and delayed recognition of my successor-in-interest rights Prevented me from making payments by refusing to provide necessary loan information Improperly escalated the loan to foreclosure Structured loan modifications in a manner that appears designed to fail Used coercive and dismissive language implying displacement rather than offering meaningful loss mitigation Requested Resolution I respectfully request : 1. Immediate executive-level review of my loan modification 2. A fully itemized breakdown detailing how the {$1200.00} payment was calculated 3. Reconsideration of my loan modification to reflect a truly affordable payment based on verified household income 4. A formal review of Regions Banks handling of my successor-in-interest status and foreclosure referral Without meaningful intervention, my family faces homelessness despite substantial equity in the home and multiple documented hardships spanning more than three years.\n\nI respectfully request the assistance of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in reviewing this matter.\n\nThank you for your consideration. \n\nXXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-02T04:51:48.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"350XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19886077","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-03-02T03:52:16.000Z","state":"AL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"An existing modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or other loss mitigation relief"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I believe Regions Bank engaged in improper mortgage servicing practices, wrongfully denied my successor-in-interest rights, failed to properly administer loss <em>mitigation</em>, and implemented abusive and unsustainable loan modification terms that have placed my family at extreme <em>risk</em> of XXXX. \n\nAssumption of Mortgage Payments After My Fathers Death Upon my fathers death on XX/XX/XXXX, I immediately assumed responsibility for the mortgage payment in the amount of {$840.00} per month."],"sub_issue":["An existing modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or other loss <em>mitigation</em> relief"]},"sort":[11.075238,"19886077"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2920725","_score":9.755169,"_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":["In some instances, Ocwen foreclosed on individuals who may have been eligible to save these homes <em>through</em> a loan modification or other loss <em>mitigation</em> option. \nFailed to adequately investigate and r"]},"sort":[9.755169,"2920725"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10990051","_score":9.400234,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"To all parties of interest Among the Colorado Attorney General, CFPD and CFPB I am writing to request your assistance, guidance, intervention, support, and/ or any resources available to aid in resolving commercial consumer lending conflicts that have ensued with FNBO pertaining to an SBA business loan and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, pertaining to an agreement for the purchase of future receivables. Where both of these organizations performed many acts of deception, bad faith, breach, and potentially civil theft. Additionally, and if applicable, the commercial consumer bad faith of XXXX XXXX XXXX company along with multiple acts of fraud, deception, perjury, forgery, breach, malicious litigation, and potentially extortion that were performed throughout several partner disputes. These complex and unfortunate matters have collectively endangered my well-being and have placed me at imminent risk of homelessness and financial ruin. My home is being forced into foreclosure by FNBO with a foreclosure sale date scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX. I am knocking on your door, having exhausted all available resources, including consulting with attorneys and seeking assistance from various organizations. I believe these matters fall within your jurisdiction and I am hopeful you can offer your support to ensure these matters are being handled ethically and equitably. I have been approved for limited-scope legal consultation with XXXX XXXX and XXXX  XXXX services through XXXX  XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nI have spoken with XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX Director of Foreclosure Defense. XXXX advised me to seek to file an error, omissions, and lost mitigation complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). I have submitted a complaint but have yet to receive a response. This has prompted me to seek your assistance. I have also spoken with attorney XXXX XXXX, who enlisted himself to assist me with XXXX XXXX through XXXX XXXX XXXX should I need to. Both of these gentlemen have educated me and guided me within the reach of their scopes thus far. I have CC 'd both of these gentlemen simply to keep them in the loop so they may remain informed. Should either of them need to confer with your organization. \nAll of the claims I have made can be substantiated and verified. They have been meticulously documented in numerous audio recordings, written correspondence, loan documents, contracts, and agreements. I have provided a detailed narrative of the events that have transpired since XX/XX/XXXX, which have put me at imminent risk of homelessness and financial ruin. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX located at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, since XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. I operated XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX Unfortunately, I was compelled to cease operations on XX/XX/XXXX due to the financial harm incurred through existing partner disputes, necessitating a reliance on XXXX for temporary bridge funding in XXXX of XXXX. Followed by a breakdown of my hot water heating system on XX/XX/XXXX, ceasing operations on that dayXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX did not pay this covered loss in bad faith. Then ultimately FNBO committed several acts of deception, offering unauthorized terms for the SBA I originally guaranteed and secured on XX/XX/XXXX in the amount of {$180000.00}, forcing me to default for reasons not related to failure of payment. Then finally, the sale of my home, with no consideration of any other options, resolutions, or cure. \nXXXX appropriated unauthorized remittances intended for future receivables in response to the failure of my hot water system on XX/XX/XXXX. This resulted in a depleted cash reserve, including payments to the XXXX XXXX  XXXX and the XXXX XXXX XXXX for sales and property taxes, leading to delinquent tax accounts. Additionally, the funds reserved for my employees payroll were also affected. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX sent my operating account negative after multiple pleas for them to cease their ACH attempts in the absence of generating sales. These occurrences are all breaches of our agreement according to the contract documents. \nXXXX is now actively pursuing a default judgment against me in California despite numerous attempts to communicate with them. During these communications, I have consistently provided evidence of the contractual language that irrefutably establishes their bad faith and multiple breaches. Furthermore, XXXX XXXX was dissolved prior to XXXX filing their claims. The dissolution clearly cures XXXX XXXX from default, according to the contract language. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, FNBO amended the original XXXX loan offering 6 months of interest-only payments and gave me a new 60-month term and stated I could retain a percentage of the sale of my home should I choose to sell it and utilize the equity to pay down a large percentage of the principal and use the remaining proceeds to resume business operations and correct the fallout that was occurring. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I met with FNBO to follow up on the outstanding business issues and discuss them in detail. I received a check from XXXX for {$17000.00} for equipment purchases, which required a co-signature from FNBO. My home was under contract and nearing its close. During the meeting, FNBO informed me that they would now take 100 % of the sale proceeds of my home because the business had been under-performing. However, the situation had improved significantly on XX/XX/XXXX, as we had secured funds and were receiving money from the sale that I had pledged {$80000.00} to the principal of {$160000.00} with 58 months remaining on the term. FNBO stated that I could write up an expense report, but there was no guarantee that I could recover any of the money from the sale. I expressed my disappointment and reliance on our previous agreement and the funds from the sale to move forward. Without these resources, I would not be able to proceed. \nI then informed FNBO that I should not accept the {$17000.00} check because without the proceeds from selling my home, I would not have the necessary operating capital to pay rent, property taxes, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Without correcting my DTI and creditworthiness, I would not be able to continue doing business. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and my revolving credit was maxed and imbalanced. The only way to rectify this situation was through good faith from XXXX or the sale of my home ; otherwise, bankruptcy was imminent. \nI was transparent and informed FNBO that I would need to borrow XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with approximately {$9000.00} of the {$17000.00} to cover XXXX rent and {$4500.00} in unpaid property taxes. Knowing all this information, FNBO agreed to sign the check, release the funds, and allow me to provide them with receipts XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX FNBO granted me permission to use the funds temporarily to cover expenses. \nFirst National Bank of Omaha ( FNBO ) repeatedly emphasized that as long as I continued to make loan payments, I was not obligated to sell my home. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  FNBO subsequently requested that I provide a cost report and urged me to minimize my expenses. They would then contact the Small Business Administration ( SBA ) to ascertain whether they could authorize the release of funds from the sale of my home. However, this was not a guarantee, and it would take approximately one week for FNBO to receive a response. \nMy expenses were due two days after our meeting, and my home was scheduled to close on XX/XX/XXXX. FNBO co-signed the check, making the {$17000.00} available to me. {$10000.00} of these funds were applied to the outstanding balance of a personal credit line I had on FNBOs credit card. I utilized these funds to reduce my debt-to-income ratio ( DTI ) and enable me to purchase the necessary equipment and make the required repairs that were allocated for once I resumed operations. The remaining {$7600.00} was allocated to cover outstanding expenses, equipment repairs, moving costs, and storage expenses. \nRegrettably, I had a partnership in the works and made every effort to restructure my entity to reflect this partnership appropriately. However, FNBO denied this opportunity on XX/XX/XXXX. FNBO informed me that a 100 % sole proprietor S-corp could not be modified, or they would forfeit their guarantee with the SBA. They also declined to consider refinancing the loan with my partners financial support without reviewing his personal financial statement ( PFS ), assessing his creditworthiness, or engaging in a conversation with anyone in underwriting or the SBA. The loan documents do not explicitly state that entity changes are not permitted ; they merely require an approved written request. \nInitially, FNBO presented several options but subsequently rejected each one. Consequently, I found myself with no alternative but to attempt to mitigate the potential consequences with the property owner of the commercial space I was leasing, where I also had a personal guarantee with nine years of leasing rights valued at approximately {$550000.00}. FNBO essentially demanded that I deceive the property owner and proceed without any guaranteed financial support. This entire situation was highly unethical, and I could not bear the thought of concealing these truths from all parties involved. \nDuring a subsequent conversation with the property owner, I was able to reach a resolution that relieved my personal guarantee by assisting in locating a qualified operator who desired to establish their own leasing terms with the property owner to secure the rents I had guaranteed. This was a consideration that had been discussed with the property owners since XX/XX/XXXX. The location is highly desirable, and numerous interested operators had contacted both me and the property owners during this extended period of downtime to negotiate leasing terms. I had also exhausted all options for a partnership with these parties or a sale, if that had been an option. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, an interested party committed to a partnership and pledged {$30000.00} in cash to initiate operations. I conveyed this information to FNBO, requesting a restructuring of the entity to reflect this new ownership interest. However, FNBO declined this option, citing potential loss of the SBA guarantee. They also stated that they would not consider refinancing the loan with new ownership interests and were unwilling to continue their business with me. \nWe subsequently discussed the status of my home sale and the costs report required for SBA consideration to alleviate some of the lien on my home. FNBO advised me to pursue financing through another bank, which was also an option available to me. Despite my efforts, FNBO appeared unwilling to offer a viable path forward, making it challenging for my business to continue. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I notified First National Bank of Omaha ( FNBO ) that I had vacated the commercial space and secured the assets. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX, FNBOs director of commercial lending, abruptly suspended my business accounts without prior notice or communication. Notably, my loan payments were current at the time. There was no indication of default or any suggestion that the loan was in any way delinquent. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, FNBO met with me at the storage facility to confirm the location of the assets. FNBO subsequently advised me to sell my home, after which they would grant me time to sell the assets as close to market value as possible. I reiterated my intention to repay the loan in accordance with the agreed-upon terms and clarified that the loan was not in default or delinquent. \nXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX initiated an Automated Clearing House ( ACH ) payment of {$15000.00} to XXXXXXXX XXXX FNBO business checking account ending in XXXX for lost business income. FNBO did not require my signature for the lost business income, as they had no liens on my income or any orders for garnishment. However, FNBO diverted those funds, along with the {$10000.00} I had paid to FNBOs credit card ( CC ) account without my knowledge. Notably, FNBO did not provide any notice of this action. Consequently, my XXXX XXXX accounts became negative due to the recalled funds without my knowledge. This action severely damaged my creditworthiness, rendering me unable to pay for or manage my business and living expenses. As a result, I am currently experiencing dire circumstances and am urgently seeking to avoid homelessness. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I transmitted a written intent to repay my loan to FNBO via email to the director of commercial lending. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, FNBO dispatched a demand letter demanding full payment. I then began correspondence with XXXX XXXX of FNBO. \nI reported all of these facts to XXXX XXXX, also informing her I had the audio recordings and correspondence to establish the unethical nature of these circumstances. XXXX did not care to evaluate the legitimacy of my allegations and proceeded to bully me and financially cripple me to submit to her course of action. She ultimately took possession of the business assets, liquidated them, and has provided no documentation regarding the sale of the equipment since. \nI am in desperate need of support or any sort of intervention you may be able to offer urgently. Please feel free to contact me directly via phone, text or email at your soonest convenience. I will pause my calendar to accommodate any availability the Attorney General, XXXX, of CFPB has to speak and or meet with me.. Thank you for your valued time and consideration. It is genuinely appreciated. I have volumes of additional documentation and correspondence that I am able to provide with the ability to share a file exceeding XXXX XXXX \n\n\n\n\n\n\nWith XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX Email : XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-02T20:32:15.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)","zip_code":"80504","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10990051","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA","date_received":"2024-12-02T19:53:58.000Z","state":"CO","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Foreclosure"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["These complex and unfortunate matters have collectively endangered my well-being and have placed me at imminent <em>risk</em> of homelessness and financial ruin. My home is being forced into foreclosure by FNBO with a foreclosure sale date scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX. I am knocking on your door, having exhausted all available resources, <em>including</em> consulting with attorneys and seeking assistance from various organizations."]},"sort":[9.400234,"10990051"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17922315","_score":9.282702,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, WI, XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  Rocket Mortgage Attn : Loss Mitigation and Appeals XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nXXXX, MI XXXX Fax : ( XXXX ) XXXX Re : Appeal of XXXX  XXXX  Period Plan and Request for Full XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Number : XXXX Property Address : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, WI XXXX To Whom It May Concern : I am writing to formally appeal the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that has been offered on my loan and to request a full review under the XXXX XXXX  Flex Modification guidelines. Your correspondence and prior communications have confirmed that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is both the investor and the owner of this mortgage loan. \nThis letter is also a complaint regarding the conduct of my assigned dedicated point of contact and other servicing staff, and the lack of transparency about the terms of the offered XXXX plan. I am working with a HUD approved housing counselor and will share your written response with them. \n\n1. Background and current trial offer I am the confirmed successor in interest to the above referenced property and previously served as power of attorney for finances for the prior borrower. I have been attempting in good faith to resolve the loan and keep the property as part of the estate, keep housing affordable, and due to my XXXX  XXXX. \nI originally submitted my successor in interest documentation and requested loss mitigation or loan assistance several months before the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX letter was issued. After that, I sent multiple written complaints and requests for help directly to Rocket Mortgage by email at XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. In those emails I described ongoing problems with successor recognition, inconsistent information from various agents, and my attempts over several months to obtain clear details about modification and assistance options. \nDespite my earlier submission, Rocket subsequently sent and addressed to me a duplicate successor in interest packet by XXXX and however addressed to XXXX XXXX XXXX in the packet, which added to the confusion about whether my status had been properly recognized. When these issues were not resolved, I filed a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) on XX/XX/XXXX, CFPB complaint ID XXXX. That complaint included information about my prior contact with Rocket, my successor in interest submission, and the duplicate XXXX  mailing. The CFPB complaint was submitted several days before Rocket Mortgage generated the Trial Period Plan letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX months after speaking to Rocket in XXXX regarding successor documentation. \nI also scheduled an appointment with a HUD approved housing counselor as soon as I could. The first available opening I was given was XX/XX/XXXX, and I booked that appointment on or about XX/XX/XXXX. This means that long before the XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX letter was issued, I had already arranged to meet with a HUD counselor to review my situation and understand my options. The timing of that appointment was determined by the counselors availability and current state and federal funding for most of these programs, not by any delay on my part. \nYour office has offered a trial plan labeled XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Summary, with a trial payment of approximately XXXX dollars per month for XXXX months in XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. The documents label the offer as XXXX, but do not explain what XXXX  is, whether it is a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, another XXXX XXXX program, or a proprietary modification product, and do not describe what rules govern its terms. \nThe XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that I later received is dated XX/XX/XXXX. On the back of the first page, the language states that I must accept the offer within 30 days and that acceptance can occur either by making the first payment of XXXX dollars or by contacting you to confirm that I want to accept the plan. It further states that if you do not receive confirmation or payment by the deadline, the offer may be revoked and my loan may continue to be referred to foreclosure. It instructs me that I can make my payment or confirm acceptance by signing in online to Rocket Mortgage or by reaching out to my single point of contact. On the very last page of the packet, page six, the plan describes an appeal process and states that after receiving an appeal, Rocket Mortgage will respond within 30 days. The same packet states that any appeal must be submitted by XX/XX/XXXX. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, before I had seen this letter, I spoke with my dedicated point of contact by phone. After verifying my identity and account information, she immediately asked if I was going to pay the total delinquent amount. I responded that she should already be aware of the situation, including my financial hardship and the fact that I had submitted successor in interest documentation, and that as the dedicated point of contact she should be familiar with my file. She left me a message on my voicemail the previous day on XX/XX/XXXX. \nDuring that XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  call, my dedicated point of contact also told me that there was no letter for me to have received. She stated that she had not written or completed any letter, that it was impossible for me to have received one, and that she also had not emailed me anything. She stated that the modification paperwork was not yet completed and that it was not possible for me to receive any documentation at that time. She further stated that I would not receive documentation until after the trial period was completed. \nAfter placing me on hold, she returned and informed me that I would need to make three trial payments of about XXXX dollars on XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ), XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ), and XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ) as part of a XXXXXXXX XXXX period, and that there were no other options available to me. She told me that I had to agree to this trial amount. In other words, I was told to accept a trial plan and payment amount, under threat that there were no alternatives, while being told that the paperwork was not finished and that I would not receive any documentation until after the trial was completed. \nBecause I am trying to keep this home and was told I had no other options, I reluctantly agreed to allow XXXX dollars to be drafted on the XXXX of each month during the three month trial period. She then placed me on hold again to set up automatic payments from my bank account. \nWhile I was still on the call or immediately afterward, I received three emails confirming scheduled automatic drafts of approximately XXXX dollars for XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ), XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ), and XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ). Those emails also displayed a message in the upper right corner indicating that the account was closed, which was confusing given that you were scheduling automatic pulls from the same account. I am attaching screenshots of those three scheduled payment emails as Exhibit B. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, my dedicated point of contact emailed me what she described as the completed XXXX XXXX XXXX documents. These documents show a notice date of XX/XX/XXXX and match the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that I later received in paper form. This XX/XX/XXXX email directly contradicts her statements on XX/XX/XXXX that there was no letter, that no documents had been completed, and that nothing had been emailed. I am attaching screenshots of the XX/XX/XXXX email, and pdf document, including the from address and the date and time received, as Exhibit A. \nI did not actually receive the paper XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in the mail until around XX/XX/XXXX. I received the email copy on XX/XX/XXXX, pdf document, Only then did I see the written description of the mailed trial plan, the acceptance instructions, the foreclosure warning, the appeal language, and the statement that Rocket Mortgage will respond to an appeal within 30 days. The back of the first page and the last page stated that any appeal must be submitted by XX/XX/XXXX, and that Rocket Mortgage would respond to an appeal within 30 days of receiving it. In practice, this gave me only about six days from the date I received the letter to understand the written terms, reconcile them with what my dedicated point of contact had told me, consult with a HUD approved housing counselor, and prepare any appeal. \nThe combination of a very short written appeal window, the statement that I must accept the offer within 30 days or face possible continued foreclosure referral, the promise that you can take up to 30 days to respond, and the contradictory verbal statements from my point of contact about there being no letter and no documentation until after trial made it extremely difficult to exercise the appeal right in a timely and informed way. \n\n2. Affordability and risk of redefault based on my budget My verified net monthly income is approximately XXXX dollars. \nAfter my current XXXX obligation ends, my essential non housing recurring expenses total approximately XXXX dollars per month. This figure includes utilities ( electric and gas ), phone service, auto insurance, minimum payments on existing debts, modest food and household needs, and a small group of essential subscription and technology services that I rely on for communication and safety, such as XXXX, XXXX, and caller ID spam blocking. My homeowners association ( HOA ) dues are XXXX dollars per month. \nBased on these figures, my monthly budget under the proposed XXXXXXXX XXXX is : Trial payment : about XXXX dollars HOA : XXXX dollars Essential non housing expenses : about XXXX dollars Total monthly outflow : XXXX + XXXX + XXXX = XXXX dollars Compared to my net income of about XXXX dollars, this leaves a monthly deficit of about XXXX dollars, before health insurance and any unforeseen expenses. \nI explained to my dedicated point of contact that this trial payment would be very tight and that the servicer should be concerned about my risk of redefault. I stated that a realistic review of my income and essential expenses shows that a XXXX dollar payment, plus HOA and basic living costs, does not fit my budget. I also stated that the servicer ought to have the borrowers best interests in mind when evaluating options, especially when the loan is owned by XXXX XXXX and specific modification tools are available. \nDespite this, I was told there were no other options, and I was pressured to agree to the trial without completed documentation or a clear explanation of the long term terms. On the numbers above, the proposed XXXX trial payment is not affordable and sets me up for another default, which is not in my interest or XXXX XXXX interest. I am also experiencing medical retaliation for filing regulatory complaints of overmedication and assault in regards to my mothers medical care and passing and experiencing a significant amount of distress. I am attaching a one page monthly budget summary as Exhibit E that shows this deficit clearly. \n\n3. Pattern of problems with the dedicated point of contact and other agents Over multiple months, both when I was acting as power of attorney for finances and now as a confirmed successor in interest, I have experienced the following issues with my assigned dedicated point of contact and other servicing agents : Repeated refusal to provide basic modification terms, even after direct requests from me for the proposed interest rate, the proposed term in months and years, the full payment schedule or amortization, the escrow breakdown, and the post capitalization principal balance.\n\nStatements that no documentation and no detailed information about the modification would be provided until after the trial period was successfully completed. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, an insistence that I must agree to the trial terms even while stating that the modification paperwork was not finished, that there was no letter, that it was impossible for me to have received anything, and that nothing had been emailed, followed by an email of completed documents on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  that directly contradicts those statements. \nA focus on whether I could pay the full delinquent amount or enter a very short three month arrangement, even after I had explained my limited fixed income and the fact that such lump sum or short term cures are not realistic for me. \nStatements that if I did not accept the offered XXXX, I had no other options, and that if I failed the trial I would have to file successor in interest paperwork again and start over, rather than continuing loss mitigation efforts as the already recognized successor. \nWhen I requested online access to the mortgage account so that I could review statements, documents, and payment activity, my dedicated point of contact denied that request and told me it was a privacy issue ; even though I had previously been the legal power of attorney for finances, I am now the court recognized executor of the estate, and I am the recorded successor on the deed and mortgage. \nThis pattern leaves me without the information I need to make an informed decision and undermines my ability to evaluate whether the trial offer complies with XXXX XXXX  requirements or meaningfully reduces the risk of redefault. As the person responsible for managing this estate and making the payments, I should not be told that I must accept an offer without documentation or that I have no options if I question affordability. \nI am requesting assignment of a new, knowledgeable single point of contact or supervisory level contact who can provide complete, accurate information about all available options on a XXXX XXXX owned loan, and who will assist me in obtaining appropriate online access to the account consistent with my legal status. \n\n4. XXXX XXXX  ownership, XXXX, and the waterfall Your written communication has stated that XXXX XXXX  is the investor and owner of this loan. Another notice explained that you used a ranked ordering system, or waterfall, to evaluate workout options. In that notice you also stated that : A cap and extend modification was not offered because I qualified for another workout option based on my financial situation, and That other option is the XXXX trial plan. \nHowever : The trial plan and letters do not define XXXX  or identify whether it is a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX or some other XXXX program. \nI have not received any waterfall worksheet or clear explanation showing how my loan was evaluated under XXXX XXXX rules, or whether maximum allowable term extension and other Flex tools were considered. \nBased on my own budget math, the XXXX trial payment is not sustainable, while longer terms and different structures could produce a payment that is much closer to what I can realistically pay. \nIn particular, the current XXXX trial appears to be based on a remaining term of approximately 186 months ( about XXXX years ), and I have not been given any explanation of why a longer term was not used to reduce the monthly payment, even though XXXX XXXX style modification guidelines generally contemplate extending the term, within allowed limits, to help achieve an affordable payment. \nBased on my fixed income, the short XXXX term with a {$710.00} payment is financially unsustainable. It is mathematically impossible for my loan to have failed an affordability test if the XXXX XXXX waterfall was correctly applied using the full XXXX term extension. \nI am therefore asking you to clarify exactly what XXXX is and how it fits into the required waterfall for a XXXX owned loan. \n\nXXXX. Requests for clarification, reevaluation, and correction Because XXXX XXXX is the investor and owner, and because I am already a confirmed successor in interest, I am requesting that you do the following : 1.Treat this letter as both an appeal and a complaint. Please treat this letter as : a.An appeal of the current XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and b.A complaint regarding how my loss mitigation options and successor in interest status have been handled. I should not be required to accept any initial workout offer, or risk further foreclosure referral, before my appeal is fully reviewed and responded to in writing. \n\n2.Treat this appeal as timely or accept it for good cause. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Summary is dated XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  and states that any appeal must be submitted by XX/XX/XXXX, yet I did not actually receive the paper letter until around XX/XX/XXXX. I spoke with my dedicated point of contact on XX/XX/XXXX, and she told me that there was no letter, that the paperwork was not finished, that it was impossible for me to have received anything, and that I would not receive documentation until after the trial was completed. On XX/XX/XXXX, she then emailed me completed XXXX XXXX documents dated XX/XX/XXXX. \nThe conflicting and false verbal statements from your dedicated point of contact on XX/XX/XXXX made it impossible for me to rely on the stated appeal deadline. \nI did not learn about the specific appeal deadline and the written appeal process until I physically received and reviewed the paper letter, which left me only about six days to understand the written terms, reconcile them with what my dedicated point of contact had told me, consult with a HUD approved housing counselor, and prepare any appeal.\n\nIn addition, before the XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  letter was issued I had already sent multiple written complaints directly to Rocket Mortgage at XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, and I filed a CFPB complaint on XX/XX/XXXX, CFPB complaint ID XXXX, about these same servicing issues. I also scheduled a HUD approved housing counseling appointment for XXXX XXXX XXXX months in advance, on or about XX/XX/XXXX, because that was the first available opening. These steps show that I have been actively and consistently trying to resolve this matter in good faith within the limited time available. For these reasons, I am asking that you treat this letter as a timely appeal, or at minimum accept it for good cause. \n3.Explain what XXXX is. Please state clearly in writing : a.Whether XXXX  is a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, another standard XXXX XXXX XXXX, or a proprietary modification product of your company, and b.Which investor or XXXX XXXX guidelines govern the terms of this XXXX  plan. \n\n4.Provide complete written disclosure of the XXXX terms. Before I decide whether to proceed, please provide in writing : a.The pre modification principal balance and all amounts capitalized. \nb.The post capitalization principal balance. \nc.The proposed interest rate and whether it is fixed or adjustable. \nd.The proposed term in months and in years.\n\ne.The exact monthly principal and interest portion. \nf.The escrow portion broken out between taxes, insurance, and any other items. \ng.Any principal forbearance or balloon amount. \nh.Any other fees or charges included in the modification. \n\n5.Reevaluate the loan under the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Please confirm in writing whether my loan has been properly evaluated under the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX waterfall. If it has not, I am requesting that you do so now. If it has, please provide the complete waterfall worksheet, including : a.The property value used. \nb.The pre modification and post modification principal and interest payment amounts. \nc.Any interest rate adjustments considered. \nd.Any term extensions considered, up to the maximum allowed term from the modification date. \ne.Any principal forbearance considered. \nf.The exact monthly net income and the specific non-housing expense figures used in the servicers calculation, including the treatment of my $ XXXX  monthly HOA dues.\n\ng.The reasons you selected the current term length and payment level given my documented income and essential expenses. \n\nBased on my income of about XXXX dollars and my essential expenses and HOA, a short term plan with a XXXX dollar payment leaves me structurally negative each month. I am specifically requesting that you consider the maximum term extension available under the applicable investor guidelines, and explain in writing why any longer term was not offered, as well as any permitted principal forbearance, so that my monthly payment reflects a realistic ability to pay and reduces the risk of redefault. \n6.Confirm that declining or failing the current trial does not waive my rights. Please confirm in writing that if I decline or can not maintain the current XXXX XXXX  because it is unaffordable : a.This will not waive my right to be evaluated for all XXXX XXXX eligible options, including Flex Modification, and b.I will not be required to restart the successor in interest process solely because I did not accept or complete an unaffordable trial.\n\n7.Correct the conduct of the dedicated point of contact and provide appropriate account access. Please review the conduct of my current dedicated point of contact and other agents who have handled my file and ensure that : a.Future personnel provide accurate information about all available loss mitigation options for this XXXX XXXX  owned loan. \nb.I am given complete written terms before being asked to agree to any trial or permanent modification. \nc.I am not told that I have no options when I raise legitimate concerns about affordability and redefault risk. \nd.I am not placed in a position where I must authorize automatic bank drafts without completed paperwork and full documentation. \ne.I am not given verbal information that directly contradicts the written notices, especially regarding the existence of letters, the status of documents, and the appeal process. \nf.My legal status as successor in interest, executor of the estate, and responsible party for the mortgage is respected, including by granting appropriate online access to the account so I can monitor statements, documents, and payment activity. \n\n6. Submission method and request for confirmation Due to my lack of transportation and inability to access USPS certified mail, I am submitting this appeal and complaint to Rocket Mortgage by multiple electronic means. This includes email to your servicing and resolution addresses, and, if possible, transmission through my HUD approved housing counselor. Please confirm receipt of this appeal in writing and ensure that it is routed to Loss Mitigation and the appropriate supervisory staff for XXXX XXXX owned loans. \n\n7. Conclusion I want to keep this home. Properly structured, my mortgage and HOA payment are still less than typical market rent and the property represents important estate value and shelter. I am willing to accept a longer term, even though this means I may pay more total interest dollars over the life of the loan, if that is necessary to reach a sustainable monthly payment that I can realistically make every month. When I refer to higher total interest cost, I am talking about the total interest paid over time from a longer term, not an increase in the note interest rate.\n\nWhat I can not do is accept a short term XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  that my own numbers and budget clearly show I can not afford, especially when I am not given full documentation or a clear explanation of how this plan was chosen over other possible options. I am asking for a good faith review that takes my actual current income and essential expenses into account and uses the full range of tools available for a XXXX XXXX owned loan. \nPlease provide a written response to this appeal and complaint, including answers to all requested items, within thirty days. I request that you send your response by mail and, if possible, by secure online message so that I can share it with my HUD approved housing counselor.\n\nI am attaching the following exhibits with this letter : XXXX XXXX XXXX Screenshots of the XX/XX/XXXX email from my dedicated point of contact transmitting the completed XXXX XXXX XXXX documents, showing the from address and the date and time received. \nExhibit B : Screenshots of the three scheduled payment emails confirming the automatic XXXX dollar drafts, including the account closed notation. \nExhibit C : Confirmation or summary of my CFPB complaint filed XX/XX/XXXX, CFPB complaint ID XXXX. \nExhibit D : Copy of the duplicate successor in interest packet sent to me by XXXX. \nExhibit E : Monthly budget summary showing my income, essential expenses, HOA, and the resulting deficit at the proposed XXXX trial payment level. \nThank you for your prompt attention. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX panwriter, markdown","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-28T17:42:28.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"54650","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17922315","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Rocket Mortgage, LLC","date_received":"2025-11-28T17:11:52.000Z","state":"WI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"An existing modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or other loss mitigation relief"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This includes email to your servicing and resolution addresses, and, if possible, transmission <em>through</em> my HUD approved housing counselor. Please confirm receipt of this appeal in writing and ensure that it is routed to Loss <em>Mitigation</em> and the appropriate supervisory staff for XXXX XXXX owned loans. \n\n7. Conclusion I want to keep this home. Properly structured, my mortgage and HOA payment are still less than typical market rent and the property represents important estate <em>value</em> and shelter."],"sub_issue":["An existing modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or other loss <em>mitigation</em> relief"]},"sort":[9.282702,"17922315"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11573037","_score":8.844442,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"I\nAMENDED AND RESTATED\nBYLAWS\nOF\nBLOCK, INC.\nIncorporated under the Laws of the State of Delaware\nThese Amended and Restated Bylaws (as amended, the Bylaws) of Block, Inc., a Delaware corporation\n(the Corporation), are effective as of XXXX XXXX XXXX  and hereby amend and restate the previous\nbylaws of the Corporation which are hereby deleted in their entirety and replaced with the following:\nARTICLE I\nOFFICES AND RECORDS\nSECTION 1.1. Delaware Office. The registered office of the Corporation shall be at the address specified\nin the Corporations certificate of incorporation, as the same may be amended from time to time.\nSECTION 1.2. Other Offices. The Corporation may have such other offices, either inside or outside the\nState of Delaware, as the Corporation may from time to time designate.\nSECTION 1.3. Books and Records. The books and records of the Corporation may be kept inside or\noutside the State of Delaware at such place or places as may from time to time be designated by the Board\nof Directors of the Corporation (the Board of Directors).\nARTICLE II\nSTOCKHOLDERS\nSECTION 2.1. Annual Meeting. The annual meeting of the stockholders of the Corporation shall be held\non such date and at such place, if any, and time as may be fixed by resolution of the Board of Directors.\nSECTION 2.2. Special Meeting. Subject to the rights of the holders of any series of stock having a\npreference over the Common Stock of the Corporation as to dividends, voting or upon liquidation (the\nPreferred Stock) with respect to such series of Preferred Stock, special meetings of the stockholders\nmay be called only by or at the direction of (i) an officer of the corporation pursuant to a resolution\nadopted by the Board of Directors, (ii) the Chairperson of the Board of Directors (Chairperson of the\nBoard), (iii) the officer elected or designated as principal executive officer by the Board of Directors (the\nPrincipal Executive Officer), (iv) the Chief Executive Officer, or (v) the President of the Corporation.\nThe record date for determining the record stockholders entitled to notice of the special meeting and\nentitled to vote at a special meeting shall be fixed in accordance with Section 213 (or its successor\nprovision) of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware or any successor legislation\n(DGCL).\nSECTION 2.3. Place of Meeting. The Board of Directors or the Chairperson of the Board, as the case may\nbe, may designate the place of meeting for any annual or special meeting of the stockholders or may\ndesignate that the meeting be held by means of remote communication. If no designation is so made, the\nplace of meeting shall be the principal office of the Corporation.\nSECTION 2.4. Notice of Meeting. Whenever stockholders are required or permitted to take any action at\na meeting, a notice of the meeting shall be given in accordance with Section 232 of the DGCL, and such\nnotice shall state the place, if any, date and hour of the meeting, the means of remote communications, if\nany, by which stockholders and proxy holders may be deemed to be present in person and vote at such\nmeeting, the record date for determining the stockholders entitled to vote at the meeting, if such date is\ndifferent from the record date for determining stockholders entitled to notice of the meeting, and, in the\ncase of a special meeting, the purpose or purposes for which the meeting is called. Except as otherwise\nprovided in the XXXX, the Corporations Certificate of Incorporation (as amended and restated, the\nCertificate of Incorporation) or these Bylaws, the notice of any meeting of stockholders shall be given\nnot less than ten (10) days nor more than sixty (60) days before the date of the meeting to each\nstockholder entitled to vote at such meeting as of the record date for determining the stockholders entitled\nto notice of the meeting. Such further notice shall be given as may be required by applicable law. Notice\nmay be waived in accordance with the DGCL and Section 7.4 of these Bylaws. Any previously scheduled\nannual meeting of the stockholders may be postponed, canceled, recessed or rescheduled and (unless the\nCertificate of Incorporation otherwise provides) any special meeting of the stockholders may be\npostponed, canceled, recessed or rescheduled by resolution of the Board of Directors, before or after the\nnotice for such meeting has been given to the stockholders.\nSECTION 2.5. Quorum and Adjournment. Except as otherwise provided by law, these Bylaws, or by the\nCertificate of Incorporation, the holders of a majority of the voting power of the outstanding shares of the\nCorporation entitled to vote, represented in person or by proxy, shall constitute a quorum at a meeting of\nstockholders, except that when specified business is to be voted on by a class or series of stock voting as a\nclass, the holders of a majority of the voting power of the outstanding shares of such class or series shall\nconstitute a quorum of such class or series for the transaction of such business. The Chairperson of the\nBoard, the Principal Executive Officer, the Chief Executive Officer, or the President of the Corporation,\nor in the absence or inability to act of the Chairperson of the Board, the Principal Executive Officer, the\nChief Executive Officer and the President, the presiding officer of the meeting, may adjourn the meeting\nfrom time to time, whether or not there is a quorum. No notice of the time and place, if any, of adjourned\nmeetings (including meetings adjourned to address a technical failure to convene or continue a meeting\nusing remote communication) need be given except as required by applicable law. The stockholders\npresent at a duly called meeting at which a quorum is present may continue to transact business until\nadjournment, notwithstanding the withdrawal of enough stockholders to leave less than a quorum.\nSECTION 2.6. Organization. Meetings of stockholders shall be presided over by such person as the Board\nof Directors may designate as chairperson of the meeting, or in the absence of such a person, the\nChairperson of the Board, or if none or in the Chairperson of the Boards absence or inability to act, the\nPrincipal Executive Officer, the Chief Executive Officer or the President, or if none or in their absence or\ninability to act, the director appointed as Lead Independent Director from time to time by the Board of\nDirectors (the Lead Independent Director), or if none or in the Lead Independent Directors absence or\ninability to act, a Vice President, or, if none of the foregoing is present or able to act, by a chairperson to\nbe chosen by the holders of a majority of the voting power of the outstanding shares of the Corporation\nentitled to vote generally in the election of directors, represented in person or by proxy at the meeting of\nstockholders. The Secretary, or in the Secretarys absence, an Assistant Secretary, shall act as secretary of\nevery meeting, but if neither the Secretary nor an Assistant Secretary is present, the presiding officer of\nthe meeting shall appoint any person present to act as secretary of the meeting. The Board of Directors\nshall be entitled to make such rules or regulations for the conduct of meetings of stockholders as it shall\ndeem necessary, appropriate or convenient. Subject to such rules and regulations of the Board of\nDirectors, if any, the presiding officer of the meeting shall have the right and authority to prescribe such\nrules, regulations and procedures and to do all such acts as, in the judgment of such presiding officer, are\nnecessary, appropriate or convenient for the proper conduct of the meeting, including, without limitation,\nestablishing an agenda or order of business for the meeting, rules and procedures for maintaining order at\nthe meeting and the safety of those present, limitations on participation in the meeting to stockholders of\nrecord of the Corporation, their duly authorized and constituted proxies and such other persons as the\npresiding officer shall permit, restrictions on entry to the meeting after the time fixed for the\ncommencement thereof, limitations on the time allotted to questions or comments by participants and\nregulation of the opening and closing of the polls for balloting and matters that are to be voted on by\nballot.\nSECTION 2.7. Proxies. At all meetings of stockholders, a stockholder, or such stockholders authorized\nofficer, director, employee or agent, may authorize another person or persons to act for such stockholder\nas proxy in such manner prescribed by the XXXX.\nSECTION 2.8. Order of Business.\n(A) Annual Meetings of Stockholders. At any annual meeting of the stockholders, only such nominations\nof individuals for election to the Board of Directors shall be made, and only such other business shall be\nconducted or considered, as shall have been properly brought before the meeting. For nominations to be\nproperly made at an annual meeting, and proposals of other business to be properly brought before an\nannual meeting, nominations and proposals of other business must be: (a) specified in the Corporations\nnotice of meeting (or any supplement thereto) given by or at the direction of the Board of Directors, (b)\notherwise properly made at the annual meeting, by or at the direction of the Board of Directors or (c)\notherwise properly requested to be brought before the annual meeting by a stockholder of the Corporation\nin accordance with these Bylaws. For nominations of individuals for election to the Board of Directors or\nproposals of other business to be properly requested by a stockholder to be made at an annual meeting,\nsuch stockholder must (i) be a stockholder of record at the time of giving of notice of such annual meeting\nby or at the direction of the Board of Directors and at the time of the annual meeting, (ii) be entitled to\nvote at such annual meeting and (iii) comply with the procedures set forth in Section 2.9(A) of these\nBylaws as to such business or nomination. The immediately preceding sentence shall be the exclusive\nmeans for a stockholder to make nominations or other business proposals (other than matters properly\nbrought under Rule 14a-8 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act) and\nincluded in the Corporations notice of meeting) before an annual meeting of stockholders.\n(B) Special Meetings of Stockholders. At any special meeting of the stockholders, only such business\nshall be conducted or considered as shall have been properly brought before the meeting pursuant to the\nCorporations notice of meeting. To be properly brought before a special meeting, proposals of business\nmust be (a) specified in the Corporations notice of meeting (or any supplement thereto) given by or at the\ndirection of the Board of Directors and (b) otherwise properly brought before the special meeting, by or at\nthe direction of the Board of Directors, provided, however, that nothing herein shall prohibit the Board of\nDirectors from submitting additional matters to stockholders at any such special meeting.\nNominations of individuals for election to the Board of Directors may be made at a special meeting of\nstockholders at which directors are to be elected pursuant to the Corporations notice of meeting (a) by or\nat the direction of the Board of Directors or (b) provided that the Board of Directors has determined that\ndirectors shall be elected at such meeting, by any stockholder of the Corporation who (i) is a stockholder\nof record at the time of giving of notice of such special meeting and at the time of the special meeting, (ii)\nis entitled to vote at the meeting and (iii) complies with the procedures set forth in Section 2.9(B) of these\nBylaws as to such nomination. The immediately preceding sentence shall be the exclusive means for a\nstockholder to make nominations before a special meeting of stockholders.\n(C) General. Except as otherwise provided by law, the Certificate of Incorporation or these Bylaws, the\npresiding officer of any annual or special meeting shall have the power to determine whether a\nnomination or any other business proposed to be brought before the meeting was made or proposed, as the\ncase may be, in accordance with these Bylaws and, if any proposed nomination or other business is not in\ncompliance with these Bylaws, to declare that no action shall be taken on such nomination or other\nbusiness and such nomination or other business shall be disregarded.\nSECTION 2.9. Advance Notice of Stockholder Business and Nominations.\n(A) Annual Meeting of Stockholders. Without qualification or limitation, subject to Section 2.9(C)(4) of\nthese Bylaws, for any nominations or any other business to be properly brought before an annual meeting\nby a stockholder pursuant to Section 2.8(A) of these Bylaws, the stockholder must have given timely\nnotice thereof (including, in the case of nominations, the completed and signed questionnaire,\nrepresentation and agreement required by Section 2.10 of these Bylaws), and timely updates and\nsupplements thereof, in each case in proper form, in writing to the Secretary, and such other business must\notherwise be a proper matter for stockholder action.\nTo be timely, a stockholders notice shall be delivered to the Secretary at the principal executive offices of\nthe Corporation not earlier than the close of business on the 120th day and not later than the close of\nbusiness on the 90th day prior to the first anniversary of the preceding years annual meeting; provided,\nhowever, that in the event that the date of the annual meeting is more than 30 days before or more than 60\ndays after such anniversary date, notice by the stockholder must be so delivered not earlier than the close\nof business on the 120th day prior to the date of such annual meeting and not later than the close of\nbusiness on the later of the 90th day prior to the date of such annual meeting or, if the first public\nannouncement of the date of such annual meeting is less than 100 days prior to the date of such annual\nmeeting, the 10th day following the day on which public announcement of the date of such meeting is\nfirst made by the Corporation. In no event shall any adjournment, postponement, recess or rescheduling of\nan annual meeting, or the public announcement thereof, commence a new time period for the giving of a\nstockholders notice as described above.\nNotwithstanding anything in the immediately preceding paragraph to the contrary, in the event that the\nnumber of directors to be elected to the Board of Directors is increased by the Board of Directors, and\nthere is no public announcement by the Corporation naming all of the nominees for director or specifying\nthe size of the increased Board of Directors at least 100 days prior to the first anniversary of the preceding\nyears annual meeting, a stockholders notice required by this Section 2.9(A) shall also be considered\ntimely, but only with respect to nominees for any new positions created by such increase, if it shall be\ndelivered to the Secretary at the principal executive offices of the Corporation not later than the close of\nbusiness on the 10th day following the day on which such public announcement is first made by the\nCorporation.\nIn addition, to be considered timely, a stockholders notice shall further be updated and supplemented, if\nnecessary, so that the information provided or required to be provided in such notice shall be true and\ncorrect as of the record date for the meeting and as of the date that is ten (10) business days prior to the\nmeeting or any adjournment, postponement, recess or rescheduling thereof, and such update and\nsupplement shall be delivered to the Secretary at the principal executive offices of the Corporation not\nlater than five (5) business days after the record date for the meeting in the case of the update and\nsupplement required to be made as of the record date, and not later than eight (8) business days prior to\nthe date for the meeting or any adjournment, postponement, recess or rescheduling thereof in the case of\nthe update and supplement required to be made as of ten (10) business days prior to the meeting or any\nadjournment, postponement, recess or rescheduling thereof. No later than five (5) business days prior to\nthe annual meeting or any adjournment, postponement, recess or rescheduling thereof, a stockholder\nnominating individuals for election as a director will provide the Corporation with reasonable evidence\nthat such stockholder has met the requirements of Rule 14a-19 under the Exchange Act. The failure to\ntimely provide such update, supplement, evidence or additional information shall result in the nomination\nor proposal no longer being eligible for consideration at the annual meeting. If the stockholder fails to\ncomply with the requirements of Rule 14a-19 (including because the stockholder fails to provide the\nCorporation with all information required by Rule 14a-19), then the director nominees proposed by such\nstockholder shall be ineligible for election at the annual meeting. For the avoidance of doubt, the\nobligation to update and supplement, or provide additional information or evidence, as set forth in this\nparagraph or any other Section of these Bylaws shall not limit the Corporations rights with respect to any\ndeficiencies in any notice provided by a stockholder, extend any applicable deadlines hereunder or enable\nor be deemed to permit a stockholder who has previously submitted notice hereunder or under any other\nprovision of these Bylaws to amend or update any proposal or nomination or to submit any new proposal\nor nomination, including by changing or adding nominees, matters, business and or resolutions proposed\nto be brought before a meeting of the stockholders.\n(B) Special Meetings of Stockholders.\nSubject to Section 2.9(C)(4) of these Bylaws, in the event the Corporation calls a special meeting of\nstockholders for the purpose of electing one or more directors to the Board of Directors, any stockholder\nmay nominate an individual or individuals (as the case may be) for election to such position(s) as\nspecified in the Corporations notice of meeting, provided that the stockholder gives timely notice thereof\n(including the completed and signed questionnaire, representation and agreement required by Section 2.10\nof these Bylaws), and timely updates and supplements thereof in each case in proper form, in writing, to\nthe Secretary.\nTo be timely, a stockholders notice shall be delivered to the Secretary at the principal executive offices of\nthe Corporation not earlier than the close of business on the 120th day prior to the date of such special\nmeeting and not later than the close of business on the later of the 90th day prior to the date of such\nspecial meeting or, if the first public announcement of the date of such special meeting is less than 100\ndays prior to the date of such special meeting, the 10th day following the day on which public\nannouncement is first made of the date of the special meeting and of the nominees proposed by the Board\nof Directors to be elected at such meeting. In no event shall any adjournment, postponement, recess,\ncancellation or rescheduling of a special meeting of stockholders, or the public announcement thereof,\ncommence a new time period for the giving of a stockholders notice as described above.\nIn addition, to be considered timely, a stockholders notice shall further be updated and supplemented, if\nnecessary, so that the information provided or required to be provided in such notice shall be true and\ncorrect as of the record date for the meeting and as of the date that is ten (10) business days prior to the\nmeeting or any adjournment, postponement, recess or rescheduling thereof, and such update and\nsupplement shall be delivered to the Secretary at the principal executive offices of the Corporation not\nlater than five (5) business days after the record date for the meeting in the case of the update and\nsupplement required to be made as of the record date, and not later than eight (8) business days prior to\nthe date for the meeting, and any adjournment, postponement, recess or rescheduling thereof, in the case\nof the update and supplement required to be made as of ten (10) business days prior to the meeting or any\nadjournment, postponement, recess or rescheduling thereof, as applicable. No later than five (5) business\ndays prior to the special meeting or any adjournment, postponement, recess or rescheduling thereof, a\nstockholder nominating individuals for election as a director will provide the Corporation with reasonable\nevidence that such stockholder has met the requirements of Rule 14a-19 under the Exchange Act. The\nfailure to timely provide such update, supplement, evidence or additional information shall result in the\nnomination no longer being eligible for consideration at the meeting. If the stockholder fails to comply\nwith the requirements of Rule 14a-19 (including because the stockholder fails to provide the Corporation\nwith all information required by Rule 14a-19), then the director nominees proposed by such stockholder\nshall be ineligible for election at the meeting.\n(C) Disclosure Requirements.\n(1) To be in proper form, a stockholders notice to the Secretary pursuant to Section 2.9(A) or\nSection 2.9(B) of these Bylaws, as applicable, must include the following, as applicable.\n(a) As to the stockholder giving the notice and the beneficial owner, if any, on whose\nbehalf the nomination or proposal, as applicable, is made, a stockholders notice must set forth: (i) the\nname and address of such stockholder, as they appear on the Corporations books, of such beneficial\nowner, if any, and of their respective affiliates or associates or others acting in concert therewith, (ii) (A)\nthe class or series and number of shares of the Corporation which are, directly or indirectly, owned\nbeneficially and of record by such stockholder, such beneficial owner and their respective affiliates or\nassociates or others acting in concert therewith, (B) any option, warrant, convertible security, stock\nappreciation right, or similar right with an exercise or conversion privilege or a settlement payment or\nmechanism at a price related to any class or series of shares of the Corporation or with a value derived in\nwhole or in part from the value of any class or series of shares of the Corporation, or any derivative or\nsynthetic arrangement having the characteristics of a long position in any class or series of shares of the\nCorporation, or any contract, derivative, swap or other transaction or series of transactions designed to\nproduce economic benefits and risks that correspond substantially to the ownership of any class or series\nof shares of the Corporation, including due to the fact that the value of such contract, derivative, swap or\nother transaction or series of transactions is determined by reference to the price, value or volatility of any\nclass or series of shares of the Corporation, whether or not such instrument, contract or right shall be\nsubject to settlement in the underlying class or series of shares of the Corporation, through the delivery of\ncash or other property, or otherwise, and without regard to whether the stockholder of record, the\nbeneficial owner, if any, or any affiliates or associates or others acting in concert therewith, may have\nentered into transactions that hedge or mitigate the economic effect of such instrument, contract or right,\nor any other direct or indirect opportunity to profit or share in any profit derived from any increase or\ndecrease in the value of shares of the Corporation (any of the foregoing, a Derivative Instrument)\ndirectly or indirectly owned beneficially by such stockholder, the beneficial owner, if any, or any affiliates\nor associates or others acting in concert therewith, (C) any proxy, contract, arrangement, understanding, or\nrelationship pursuant to which such stockholder, such beneficial owner and their respective affiliates or\nassociates or others acting in concert therewith have any right to vote any class or series of shares of the\nCorporation, (D) any agreement, arrangement, understanding, relationship or otherwise, including any\nrepurchase or similar so-called stock borrowing agreement or arrangement, involving such stockholder,\nsuch beneficial owner and their respective affiliates or associates or others acting in concert therewith,\ndirectly or indirectly, the purpose or effect of which is to mitigate loss to, reduce the economic risk (of\nownership or otherwise) of any class or series of the shares of the Corporation by, manage the risk of\nshare price changes for, or increase or decrease the voting power of, such stockholder, such beneficial\nowner and their respective affiliates or associates or others acting in concert therewith with respect to any\nclass or series of the shares of the Corporation, or which provides, directly or indirectly, the opportunity to\nprofit or share in any profit derived from any decrease in the price or value of any class or series of the\nshares of the Corporation (any of the foregoing, a Short Interest), (E) any rights to dividends on the\nshares of the Corporation owned beneficially by such stockholder, such beneficial owner and their\nrespective affiliates or associates or others acting in concert therewith that are separated or separable from\nthe underlying shares of the Corporation, (F) any proportionate interest in shares of the Corporation or\nDerivative Instruments held, directly or indirectly, by a general or limited partnership in which such\nstockholder, such beneficial owner and their respective affiliates or associates or others acting in concert\ntherewith is a general partner or, directly or indirectly, beneficially owns an interest in a general partner of\nsuch general or limited partnership, (G) any performance-related fees (other than an asset-based fee) that\nsuch stockholder, such beneficial owner and their respective affiliates or associates or others acting in\nconcert therewith are entitled to based on any increase or decrease in the value of shares of the\nCorporation or Derivative Instruments, if any, including without limitation any such interests held by\nmembers of the immediate family sharing the same household of such stockholder, such beneficial owner\nand their respective affiliates or associates or others acting in concert therewith, (H) any significant equity\ninterests or any Derivative Instruments or Short Interests in any principal competitor of the Corporation\nheld by such stockholder, such beneficial owner and their respective affiliates or associates or others\nacting in concert therewith and (I) any direct or indirect interest of such stockholder, such beneficial\nowner and their respective affiliates or associates or others acting in concert therewith in any contract\nwith the Corporation, any affiliate of the Corporation or any principal competitor of the Corporation\n(including, in any such case, any employment agreement, collective bargaining agreement or consulting\nagreement), (iii) all information that would be required to be set forth in a Schedule 13D filed pursuant to\nRule 13d-1(a) or an amendment pursuant to Rule 13d-2(a) if such a statement were required to be filed\nunder the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder by such stockholder, such\nbeneficial owner and their respective affiliates or associates or others acting in concert therewith, if any,\n(iv) a representation and undertaking as to whether such stockholder, such beneficial owner or their\nrespective affiliates or associates or others acting in concert with them intends, or is part of a group that\nintends, to (x) deliver a proxy statement or form of proxy to holders of at least the percentage of the\nvoting power of the Companys then-outstanding stock required to approve or adopt the proposal or to\nelect each such nominee (which representation and undertaking must include a statement as to whether\nsuch stockholder, such beneficial owner or their respective affiliates or associates or others acting in\nconcert with them intends to solicit the requisite percentage of the voting power of the Companys stock\nunder Rule 14a-19 of the 1934 Act); or (y) otherwise solicit proxies from stockholders in support of such\nproposal or nomination; and (v) any other information relating to such stockholder, such beneficial owner\nand their respective affiliates or associates or others acting in concert therewith, if any, that would be\nrequired to be disclosed in a proxy statement and form of proxy or other filings required to be made in\nconnection with solicitations of proxies for, as applicable, the proposal and/or for the election of directors\nin a contested election pursuant to Section 14 of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations\npromulgated thereunder;\n(b) If the notice relates to any business other than a nomination of a director or directors\nthat the stockholder proposes to bring before the meeting, a stockholders notice must, in addition to the\nmatters set forth in paragraph (a) above, also set forth: (i) a brief description of the business desired to be\nbrought before the meeting, the reasons for conducting such business at the meeting and any material\ninterest of such stockholder, such beneficial owner and each of their respective affiliates or associates or\nothers acting in concert therewith, if any, in such business, (ii) the text of the proposal or business\n(including the text of any resolutions proposed for consideration and, in the event that such proposal or\nbusiness includes a proposal to amend the bylaws of the Corporation, the text of the proposed\namendment), and (iii) a description of all agreements, arrangements and understandings between such\nstockholder, such beneficial owner and any of their respective affiliates or associates or others acting in\nconcert therewith, if any, and any other person or persons (including their names) in connection with the\nproposal of such business by such stockholder;\n(c) As to each individual, if any, whom the stockholder proposes to nominate for election\nor reelection to the Board of Directors, a stockholders notice must, in addition to the matters set forth in\nparagraph (a) above, also set forth: (i) all information relating to such individual that would be required to\nbe disclosed in a proxy statement or other filings required to be made in connection with solicitations of\nproxies for election of directors in a contested election pursuant to Section 14 of the Exchange Act and\nthe rules and regulations promulgated thereunder (including such individuals written consent to being\nnamed in the proxy statement as a nominee and to serving as a director if elected) and (ii) a description of\nall direct and indirect compensation and other material monetary agreements, arrangements and\nunderstandings during the past three years, and any other material relationships, between or among such\nstockholder and beneficial owner, if any, and their respective affiliates and associates, or others acting in\nconcert therewith, on the one hand, and each proposed nominee, and their respective affiliates and\nassociates, or others acting in concert therewith, on the other hand, including, without limitation all\ninformation that would be required to be disclosed pursuant to Item 404 promulgated under Regulation\nXXXX if the stockholder making the nomination and any beneficial owner on whose behalf the nomination\nis made, if any, or any affiliate or associate thereof or person acting in concert therewith, were the\nregistrant for p","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-17T00:48:39.000Z","issue":"Other transaction problem","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"62704","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11573037","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2025-01-17T00:16:29.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["such stockholder,\nsuch beneficial owner and their respective affiliates or associates or others acting in concert therewith,\ndirectly or indirectly, the purpose or effect of which is to <em>mitigate</em> loss to, reduce the economic <em>risk</em> (of\nownership or otherwise) of any class or series of the shares of the Corporation by, manage the <em>risk</em> of\nshare price changes for, or increase or decrease the voting power of, such stockholder, such beneficial\nowner and their respective affiliates or associates or others"]},"sort":[8.844442,"11573037"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15779695","_score":8.760052,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom it May Concern, On XXXX my house flooded due to a broken main water pipe in the condo above me. I filed a claim with USAA on XXXX. I had my house remediated by XXXX and all my items were packed up and taken into storage with XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. They took an inventory of what was damaged and what wasnt. Also my XXXX notified USAA all of my appliances were also damaged. USAA paid Loss of Use {$13000.00}, Dwelling {$30000.00}, XXXX {$8200.00} and XXXX XXXX XXXX {$12000.00}. I have yet to be paid for my personal property, they are stating I didnt have any damage, yet they paid {$64000.00} for the damages. All of my damaged items will not be returned because the company doesnt return damage/moldy items back to customers. USAA is stating they need to inspect my property. I explained it is all in storage waiting for them to inspection. They wanted me to have it all returned to my house. Again, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX doesnt return them. Also, I have replaced all the items so I can return to my house since they stopped paying for my loss of use. USAA stated they wont inspect the items in storage. I explained I live in a XXXX square foot condo, so I do not have space to return all damaged items. Also, if they return it to my hallway I will be fined, and they said it is my responsibility to get rid of the damaged items. They were very rude about it and said nothing we can do unless you return all items. The items are only in XXXX, which is XXXX miles from my house, yet they refuse to go to the location to inspect my damaged items. XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX sent them an email stating they have 30 days to inspect the damaged property, or they will start charging storage. I have already told them to discard the items if they do not come and inspect them. They have forced me to send this complaint because of how they have treated and refuse to pay me for a coverage I pay them for. \n\n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX USAA Claim XXXX XXXX is XXXX XXXX Please review the following email where to pack up company provided reports and pictures for unsalvageable items. The company had over XXXX ton that were unsalvageable and disposed up. Please explain why I never received the check. They provided you with everything you need so you were supposed to pay me. \n\nPlease also threaten you if you share letters to others saying they will send you to prison. \n\nHow about what the new XXXX is saying so far everything is the same. The customer is terrible, they paid an auto it wasnt my fault. With this insurance claim is a disaster. The adjuster came out XXXX weeks after the claim. \n\n\nUpdate on your Association View this email on web USAA USAA SECURITY ZONE A MESSAGE FROM THE CEO | Honored To Serve You Fellow member, I have now had the privilege of serving as CEO of USAA for just over 90 days. Leading a team with such passion for serving our military community is the honor of a lifetime. USAA is truly a one-of-a-kind company. This is your Association, and I want to share frequent updates on our work to better serve you. \n\nUSAA Priorities I outlined priorities for all employees on my first day. First, we must relentlessly focus on improving and delivering exceptional service, while continuously enhancing the value of your membership. To help us achieve this goal, we must : Enhance our product and delivery capabilities to offer you the most innovative and competitive products. \nUse new technology to improve member and teammate experiences. \nAdvocate for those we serve to help the military community thrive emotionally, physically, financially and professionally. \nGoing forward, you will hear from me quarterly and my updates will continue to center on these priorities. I will also reach out from time to time with important news and at moments that are meaningful to all of us. \n\nProviding Exceptional Service and Improving Based on Feedback Providing exceptional service has always set USAA apart. While we strive to offer best-in-class service in every interaction, we do not always get it right and this can be frustrating for our members. \n\nGuided by member and teammate feedback, I have put together dedicated teams across USAA to significantly improve the service we provide and your experience when engaging with us. One example is the authentication process for members to access USAA accounts and policies. Many have experienced difficulty with this process. We are working to create a seamless experience for members without compromising the security of your accounts or personal information. These improvements are happening alongside several others, specifically in the areas where you have given us feedback. \n\nOur focus is on continuously improving service and enhancing the value of your membership. To do that, we are adding to the variety of benefits you already have available to you as a USAA member, including : Sharing in USAAs Success. In XXXX, we returned {$2.00} XXXX to members through distributions, dividends, bank rebates and rewards. \nTailored Advice and Tools. We know the unique moments you experience in your military career, as well as in everyday life, and we understand what you need to navigate successfully. With a complete picture of your financial journey, we can share more personalized advice to help you meet your goals. Plus, our advice pages cover topics like planning for a PCS, how to spot scam attempts and exploring life insurance options. \nStaying Safe and Preventing Losses. The best claim is one that never happens. We help you keep your family safe and avoid potential losses and stress through preventative measures. This includes in-home leak detection, wildfire mitigation around your property and rewarding safe driving habits. But, should the worst happen, we are here to help you build back stronger with one of the best claims teams in the industry.\n\nBeing Part of a Movement. Face the Fight is a collaborative initiative, spearheaded by USAA, focused on preventing veteran suicide. Last week, we released the coalitions latest progress report. To date, more than XXXX lives have been impacted and more than XXXX veterans have received evidence-based care through our grant-funded initiatives. Based on current data, we are on track to help save more than XXXX lives by XXXX. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to Military Families. Through the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX program, we gift veterans and their families reliable transportation. We have already donated hundreds of vehicles, many of which have been retrofitted to meet recipients unique needs. \nBeing There When You Need Us Exceptional service goes well beyond the everyday moments. It also means showing up in the difficult times, when our members and communities need us most. Our Association has done this time and time again, from the XXXX wildfires in California to the recent flooding in XXXX Texas. Several members of the USAA XXXX were affected by the Texas floods, some of whom lost their lives, and our hearts are with their families. Our dedicated XXXX Relations XXXX, which serves the loved ones of all USAA members who have passed, is supporting them during this difficult time. \n\nThese extreme weather events can be devastating, and we will always have our members backs whenever and wherever we are needed. In both instances, the wildfires and the floods, our mobile response units were among the first on the ground. In California, thanks to state-of-the-art technology, we were able to assess damage and pay claims quickly, in some cases, even before members were able to return to their homes. In XXXXXXXX XXXX, I had the honor of spending time with our team, our affected members and the courageous and dedicated city , county and state officials leading the search, rescue and recovery efforts. USAA committed {$500000.00} to support these efforts, which has grown to more than {$3.00} XXXX thanks to the generosity of our members, employees and partners. It is moments like these when the true XXXX of our XXXX comes to life. It is a point of pride for me and I hope for you, too. \n\nBeing a USAA member means being part of a community united by shared values, a commitment to service and a desire to help military families. Many of you are active in your support, and I thank you. You can also count on your XXXX to steadfastly act on your behalf and take care of our members. \n\nAdvocating for the XXXX XXXX You have shared that part of what makes USAA special is our dedication to the causes that matter most to all of us. That is why XXXX of our key priorities is to advocate for those we serve and be a voice for change not just for members, but for the entire military community. \n\nGoing forward, we will center our efforts on building meaningful careers, supporting financial security and promoting overall well-being, including mental health. To amplify our impact, we are mobilizing a national network of public and private partners to help build resilience across the military community. We will focus on junior enlisted service members, military spouses and children, those transitioning out of the military and wounded or ill service members and their caregivers. \n\nWhat I have shared today is only the beginning. We pride ourselves on going above for those who have gone beyond. We have much to be proud of, but we also have work to do to consistently deliver exceptional service, every day and with every interaction. I will keep you updated on our progress. Please reach out to me at XXXX with your suggestions. \n\nThank you for your continued trust in USAA. Our Associations best days are ahead and I look forward to the journey with you. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX - President & CEO | IN SERVICE OF THOSE WHO SERVE We are committed to serving every member with excellence. If you have suggestions to make our Association stronger, please contact me at XXXX. \nChange your email address | Unsubscribe | Privacy Promise Please do not reply to this email. To contact USAA, visit our secure contact page. \n\nUSAA will never ask for sensitive personal information, such as a Social Security number, a PIN, account numbers, or a password in an email. To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add XXXX to your address book. \n\nInvestment and Insurance Products are : Not Insured by the FDIC or Any Federal Government Agency Not a Deposit or Other Obligation of, or Guaranteed by, the Bank Subject to Investment Risks, Including Possible Loss of the Principal Amount Invested Use of the term member or membership refers to membership in USAA Membership Services and does not convey any legal or ownership rights in USAA. Restrictions apply and are subject to change. To join USAA, separated military personnel must have received a discharge type of Honorable or General Under Honorable Conditions. Eligible family members may also join USAA. \n\nNo U.S. Department of Defense or government agency endorsement. \n\nThe trademarks, logos and names of other companies, products and services are the property of their respective owners. \n\nXXXX USAA. XXXX USAA now XXXX destroy then into the ground. \n\nWe deserve a better everything.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-16T18:05:36.000Z","issue":"Managing the loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"302XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15779695","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-09-07T02:59:04.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem with additional products or services purchased with the loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Our focus is on continuously improving service and enhancing the <em>value</em> of your membership. To do that, we are adding to the variety of benefits you already have available to you as a USAA member, <em>including</em> : Sharing in USAAs Success. In XXXX, we returned {$2.00} XXXX to members <em>through</em> distributions, dividends, bank rebates and rewards. \nTailored Advice and Tools."]},"sort":[8.760052,"15779695"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13793387","_score":8.418186,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"The UCC NON-AUTHORITATIVE COPY has a lot of inconsistency, errors and discrepancy between the terms I agreed to with the dealer and the terms the lenders. This retail installment sales contract is not a true copy of the original but more like a forgery copy.\n\nThe first error is this forgery copy is the high interest rate. The interest rate for this copy contract is 23.92 %. This is what you call usury. Under Fl. Stat. Chapter 687 and under Fl. Usury laws states the maximum permissible interest rates in Florida for a simple interest rate for loans under {$500000.00} is 18 % per annum and loans above {$500000.00} is 25 % per annum. The usury laws apply to a wide range of loans especially for consumer loans. My alleged loan is {$40000.00}. This is way under {$500000.00}. Why wasnt this disclosed to me? Whoever violated any of the provisions of Fl. Usury Laws that commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in this chapter.\n\nSAFCO can not enforce any collection of any sum of money or other obligation at a rate of interest greater than 18 % percent of annum, simple interest indirectly. Therefore, you do not have the authority or ability to collect and I am in no way obligated to repay any sum of money when my interest rate exceeds 18 %. This constitutes unsury in its purest form and is a violation of Fl. Usury Law. The law states that delinquency charges for monthly payments can not exceed {$15.00}. This too is in error because the delinquency charge according to the XXXX each month is {$25.00}. This is over killed.\n\nThis UCC NON-AUTHORITATIVE COPY was forged after the financial transaction was completed. The dealer and Safco objection was with the intent to deceive me. The true terms were manipulated in a deceiving, and extorting way.\n\nForgery is a serious offense with potential legal consequences, including fines, imprisonment, and a criminal record.\n\nWhy wasnt the true annual percentage interest rate under the Truth In Lending Act wasnt disclosed to me?\n\nIf SAFCO is claiming that this alleged debt is owed, where is the contractual agreement contract between myself and SAFCO binding us both, the lender and borrower through a covenant. Show me the documentation. I am requesting for the lenders agreement terms as well as the dealer agreement terms so I can compare it to my retail installment sales contract with the other two parties. This XXXX ( risk ) contract is between the seller and the buyer not the lender and the buyer. This deceptive practice has lead me to a buyer remorse state of mind. SAFCO has caused me great deal of injury, pain and suffering by having a financial strain on my finances under unfair loan terms which was very difficult for me to repay. I wasnt aware of these acts until SAFCO had my vehicle wrongfully repossessed. How could I have known about this? It has affected my financial informed purchasing decision which I felt into SAFCO predatory lending practices nor could I have protected my financial interests due to lack of disclosures.\n\n12 CFR 1024.36 is a request for information, acknowledgment of receipt and response to the information request.\n\nPlease operate in good faith and honor, but most of all be truthful. I will ask SAFCO and XXXX OF XXXX XXXX ( seller ) a series of questions that require to be answered in full explicitly details so I can understand these terms of the agreement.\n\n1. If SAFCO claims that there is a contractual agreement between the buyer and the alleged lender. Why wasnt the buy rate known as the net rate on the auto loan disclosed to me per the Truth In Lending Act?\n\n2. Can SAFCO disclose to me the buy rate to allow me to be aware and understand if I was charged a higher interest rate than necessary?\n\n3. SAFCO claims that there is a loan. Is it possible for a loan to be disguised as an extension of credit, or for an extension of credit to be disguised as a loan?\n\n4. Can SAFCO provide proof of the UCC financial statements filed naming the secured party as creditor?\n\n( the originator acts as servicer and not the issuing SPE who typically retains possession of the contract as custodian to perform the necessary servicing functions. If the originator transferred possession of the contract to a third party, that will enable the third party to have priority over the rated note holders ) 5. I am requesting for a written detailed explanation of how my {$3500.00} down payment was applied and why it didnt reduce the allegedly loan principal? \nWas there an error or miscalculation, hidden fees or charges, or a misleading practices? ( XXXX OF XXXX XXXX ( seller ) 6. Do you agree that this retail installment sales contract, which is a bill of sale, the collateral is over-collateralized? ( owing more than what it is truly worth ) XXXX. Can XXXX disclosed the markup price on the interest rate on the alleged loan and how much did the dealer profited off the markup? \nXXXX. What was the loan-to-value ratio of the loan and in your opinion was the XXXX a positive or negative equity?\n\n9. Was this a simplified process, meaning did SAFCO preferred to handle the contracts directly with the dealer, by keeping me, the borrower involvement limited to the core loan terms and disclosures?\n\n10. Contract law states that a contract is an agreement between two parties, creating a mutual obligation that is enforceable by law. This agreement involves an offer by one party and an acceptance by the other along with consideration ( money ). Id theres a contact between myself and Southern Auto Finance Company ( SAFCO ) LLC, SAFCO Auto Depositor , LLC, SAFCO Auto Receivables Trust 2022-1 and SAFCO Auto Receivables Trust 2024-1? ( Do not send me the buyer and seller XXXX between myself and XXXX ) XXXX. Is it true, that most lenders want to ensure that their contracts are legally sound and compliant with regulations, so whenever a borrower requests a full dealership contract between a lender and dealer to compare it against the borrowers contract. Does the request get denied because lenders might not wont borrowers to see the terms that could be interpreted as hidden or deceptive?\n\n12. Do SAFCO sells its accounts receivable ( invoices ) to a third party and/or third parties at a discount to obtain immediately cash flow?\n\n13. Since, the claim is made against me owing an alleged debt, did this transaction qualified as a true sale or a secured loan?\n\n14. What was the economic substance of the transaction and not its legal form?\n\n15. Do SAFCO benefit from its off-balance financing sheet by structuring transactions as a sale that allows them to remove the asset and associate debt from its balance sheet, improving their financial ratios like debt-to-equity that can be very attractive to investors?\n\n16. Is SAFCO intentions is to aim to maximize profits by charging high interest rates, high fees and usury to its new customers under the guise of legitimate products like MCAs?\n\n17. Do SAFCO exploits vulnerable consumers like myself by leveraging due to my lack of financial literacy?\n\n18. Why is the true nature of a financial transaction at its core?\n\n19. An auto loan and a XXXX are two different things but why does it show on my credit report that it is an auto loan when that is not the case. What is the nature of the auto loan thats being reported inaccurately on my report?\n\n20. Was this financial transaction systematically documented in SAFCO accounting records that provides a chronological order to include the history of purchases, sales, payments ( receivables ), receipts, transfers and the creation or liquidation of financial assets and liabilities?\n\n21. Who are the underwriters for SAFCO concerning the alleged loan agreement?\n\n22. SAFCO extends credit to borrowers, Fl. Stat. 687.071 ( d ) making a loan of money. Where did the funds originated from and if its borrowed money, where is the proof that the money was given to me?\n\n23. According to the original agreement who was to loan what to whom?\n\n24. Does the {$40000.00} note has the actual cash value of {$40000.00}, meaning can you sell this contract for {$40000.00} and receive the cash?\n\n25. Do you have any personal knowledge of the signing of the said contract?\n\n26. Did SAFCO willfully and intentionally knowingly charged a rate exceeding 23.92 % per annum meaning SAFCO conspired to do so without thinking about the after effect or the consequences it may had on me?\n\n27. According to the FDIC it states that a lender structuring a transaction as a guise for an alleged loan, often for fraudulent purposes involve red flags like invalid documents, undisclosed debts, and inconsistent information. Then it goes on to say that if a lenders fails to follow standard due diligence, such as verifying the borrowers ability to repay or verifying the collateral. What was the transactions implications?\n\n28. According to your understanding of the agreement, how much cash value must SAFCO loan to the borrower, in order for SAFCO to legally fulfill the agreement and legally own the contract?\n\n29. Does you agree that they borrower agreed to provide SAFCO with {$40000.00} of actual cash value, which was then used to fund the {$40000.00} Lon check back to the same borrower and then agreed to repay SAFCO back the {$40000.00} plus usury interest?\n\n30. Did the agreement call for an exchange or swap of {$40000.00} to be swapped out for another {$40000.00} or did it call for a {$40000.00} loan?\n\n31. Do SAFCO or the XXXX acquires the risks associated with the securitised assets if the borrower defaults?\n\n32. Explain to me the true sale of the securitisation process and is the true sale the transfer of structure under legal principles meaning the assets are legally isolated from SAFCO and that investors can have a clear claim to the cash flow!\n\n33. Due to the uninformed use of credit, SAFCO has misled me by holding out key relevant information from me that cloudy my informed decision making causing me to use up more credit that wasnt needed. I didnt understand the terms and conditions of the contract or the true cost of the credit. Do you agree that SAFCO negligence caused an extremely amount of uninformed use of my credit to be used as unauthorized charges on my account?\n\n34. What is the contract ID to verify that my retail installment sales contract was converted into an interest-bearing security to be traded on the secondary market?\n\n35. If the borrower never received payment from a lender, is theres a strong possibility that the loan agreement is invalid, a breach of contract and the borrower wouldnt no longer be obligated to repay it?\n\n36. What is the legitimacy of the loan and SAFCO claim?\n\n37. Did the funds come from a warehouse facility, which allows lenders to fund loans without using their own capital, SAFCO capital, the borrowers trust account or investors and whos participating in the securitisation of the two auto ABS transactions?\n\n38. Is it illegal for any lender to convert a XXXX into a bond during the securitisation process without providing adequate notice to the consumer due to the FCRA and TILA?\n\n39. What the chain of title broken after the securitisation? Who has legal ownership and has the loan been sold?\n\n40. What investment bank has my contract?\n\n41. How much did SAFCO pay the dealer to attain my contract?\n\n42. Does the agreement explicitly states that the loan would be transferred to a SPV ; a bankruptcy remote trust?\n\n43. When a borrower defaults on its obligations, does diversification and credit enhancement is used to mitigate risk for SAFCO so they will never incur a loss?\n\n44. Do SAFCO earns net interest margin, while the interest rate is paid to the certificate holders? \nXXXX. XXXX or SAFCO did not give me full disclosure. The law states lenders are required to give consumers full disclosure in a way they could grasp the concept. I was not informed that I would be creat\n\ning a security, even if the lender or dealer wrote it in fine print it supposed to be clear and conspicuous to the buyer. This is not full disclosure but a deceptive common practice thats doesnt make it legal. 46. Where is th\ne transparency, SAFCO?\n\nPlease answer each question in full detailed explanation. UCC 9-210 is the request for accounting of my account. Please provide to me the full accounting of the account.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-29T11:00:46.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"Auto debt","zip_code":"30047","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13793387","timely":"No","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Southern Auto Finance Co","date_received":"2025-05-29T09:29:17.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Forgery is a serious offense with potential legal consequences, <em>including</em> fines, imprisonment, and a criminal record.\n\nWhy wasnt the true annual percentage interest rate under the Truth In Lending Act wasnt disclosed to me?\n\nIf SAFCO is claiming that this alleged debt is owed, where is the contractual agreement contract between myself and SAFCO binding us both, the lender and borrower <em>through</em> a covenant. Show me the documentation."]},"sort":[8.418186,"13793387"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2931328","_score":7.9826455,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"This is the only specialty of Ocwen. This is the only duplicate their lair rep mentions about. The send criminals to XXXX on your property stole your private property using forge documents, lying to clients, deceiving clients and if they see that this I not working they used death threats tactics in order to intimidate people. This criminal organization must close soon permanently. I get death treats from XXXX 18 to 28 per days. Since I am not scare of this criminal behavior as I discover some IP addresses of those criminals I will go to XXXX to file criminal charges and close the doors of those hate-Americans criminals forever. This is the only expertise this pirate mortgage company has. \nServiced loans using error-riddled information : Ocwen uses a proprietary system called XXXX 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 XXXX  system. And even when data was accurate, XXXX  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 XXXX 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. \nOperations Targeted Financially Distressed Consumers in Danger of Losing Their Homes XXXX XXXX The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau today announced actions to halt two alleged mortgage loan modification scams it believes ripped-off thousands of struggling homeowners across the country. In total, these operations took in more than {$10.00} XXXX by charging consumers for services that falsely promised to prevent foreclosures or renegotiate troubled mortgages. \nWe are taking on schemes that prey on consumers who are struggling to pay their mortgages or facing foreclosure, said CFPB Director XXXX XXXX. We are especially concerned with those who misrepresent government programs or websites to divert distressed homeowners from needed assistance. \nAt the request of the CFPB, U.S. District Court Judges in the State of XXXX have ordered a halt to both operations, the XXXX Law Firm and the National Legal Help Center, and frozen their assets while the CFPB moves forward with the cases. The case involving the National Legal Help Center was initially referred to the CFPB by the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program ( SIGTARP ) and Treasurys Office of Financial Stability, which have coordinated closely with the Bureau throughout the investigation. \nIt is absolutely unacceptable for unscrupulous con artists to take advantage of our nations housing crisis by targeting homeowners looking for help from TARPs Home Affordable Modification Program, said XXXX XXXX, Special Inspector General for TARP ( SIGTARP ). We thank the CFPB for protecting homeowners. SIGTARP will continue to stop these scams and educate homeowners that mortgage modifications through HAMP are free. \nThe CFPB is targeting loan modification operations that attempt to disguise their false promises of relief for struggling homeowners with claims that they are performing legal work or are a law firm. The Bureau is also particularly concerned with schemes that attract victims with false claims that they are endorsed by or represent the government. These tactics are used by mortgage relief scams to attract victims, add credibility to their schemes, or exploit certain legal exemptions for the practice of law. \nThe CFPB complaints allege that the defendants in both cases violated the Dodd-Frank Act and Regulation O, formerly known as the Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rule. These laws prohibit unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices and protect distressed homeowners from mortgage relief scams. \nViolations of the law alleged in the CFPBs complaints in both cases include : Illegally charged large upfront fees : It is against the law for mortgage relief providers to charge fees before services are provided. However, the defendants in both cases collected fees early on, typically ranging between {$1000.00} and {$4500.00} from each distressed homeowner, for services that rarely if ever materialized. \nDeceptively claimed to be affiliated with government agencies and/or programs : Defendants in both cases used deceptive language and mailings with government logos, letterhead, and/or marks to mislead consumers into believing that their mortgage relief services were sponsored by or associated with government agencies or programs. \nMisrepresented that they would secure loan modifications for consumers : Defendants misled consumers that the defendants were experienced negotiators who would substantially reduce mortgage payments, and that defendants would identify legal violations by consumers banks or mortgage companies to use as leverage in loan modification negotiations. However, it appears that defendants failed to provide meaningful relief for consumers. \nInstructed consumers to stop paying their mortgages and stop contacting their lenders : Financially distressed consumers were told to avoid interactions with their lenders and to stop mortgage payments because the defendants would provide relief, potentially putting the consumers unknowingly at risk of losing their homes and/or ruining their credit scores. \nThe CFPB also alleges that, after pocketing thousands of dollars in illegal fees from one distressed homeowner after another, the defendants in both cases typically stopped returning consumers phone calls and emails. In the end, many consumers learned that the defendants had not contacted their lenders or obtained any meaningful relief for them. Ultimately, homeowners across the country lost thousands of dollars each and suffered significant economic injury, including losing their homes. \nNational Legal Help Center The more recent of the two actions involves XXXX   residents XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX and their operation, National Legal Help Center, which appears to target consumers in all 50 states with false promises of mortgage relief. According to the CFPB, National Legal Help Center falsely claimed that they would provide legal representation for consumers even though the individual defendants are not attorneys and consumers received no actual legal representation. \nDefendants falsely claimed that, for a fee, they could assist consumers in getting benefits from government-affiliated programs, including the recent nationwide mortgage servicing settlement between state attorneys general and the federal government, and the five largest mortgage servicers. Defendants also falsely claimed that they were associated with the Independent Foreclosure Review program overseen by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ) and the Federal Reserve. In reality, the defendants were not affiliated with either of the programs or in a position to provide the promised benefits to consumers. In fact, on XX/XX/XXXX, the OCC issued an alert on its website about this scam. \nThis is the trophy activity of Ocwen In one case, a former in-home caregiver and her husband who were indicted in XXXX  for allegedly defrauding an elderly veteran with XXXX out of about {$180000.00}. More charges are expected, and police say the couple took about {$500000.00} from the XXXX-year-old man. \nIn another case, a handyman convinced an elderly woman to give him power of attorney. He took out a reverse mortgage on the home which the woman had owned since the XX/XX/XXXX, and she never saw any of the money. She almost lost her home due to the scam. \nWe also heard a troubling story about how the CEO and CFO of a XXXX investment firm were charged with 66 felony counts of elder abuse, securities fraud, and conspiracy for bilking older investors of more than {$2.00} XXXX over an eight-year period. \nThe Government Accountability Office report on combatting elder financial abuse identified cases that are particularly thorny for social service, criminal justice, and consumer protection agencies. These cases involve exploitation by in-home caregivers, agents with power of attorney, and financial service providersexactly the kinds of cases mentioned above. These cases also demonstrate why family members or others who have close contact with older adults can play an important role in spotting and preventing elder financial abuse and exploitation. \nAt the inaugural meeting of the Elder Justice Coordinating Council last fall, we heard concerns that echo what the XXXX reported. We shared those concerns with Congress shortly after the report came out. We also detailed the work our Office for Older Americans is doing to combat some of these problems. We are : Developing guides for family members and others with legal authority to handle money for older relatives or friends, but who may not have formal training. The guides will help people understand proper record keeping, good frameworks for investing, and other basics of managing a vulnerable adults money. They also will help people recognize and respond to financial exploitation. \nProducing a guide for people who operate group living centers dedicated to serving older adults, such as XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX XXXX. We are also establishing partnerships with organizations to help distribute this information. \nPartnering with the FDIC to create XXXX XXXX for Older Adults, a community education and training program for older adults and for caregivers. \nCoordinating with stakeholders in several states to create and sustain multi-disciplinary older American protection networks. We are also developing strategies to communicate that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act generally does not prohibit companies from reporting suspected elder financial exploitation. For many of them, this is often a point of confusion.\n\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 XXXX, 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 : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX The 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 XXXX, 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. \n\nOperations Targeted Financially Distressed Consumers in Danger of Losing Their Homes XXXX XXXX. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau today announced actions to halt two alleged mortgage loan modification scams it believes ripped-off thousands of struggling homeowners across the country. In total, these operations took in more than {$10.00} XXXX by charging consumers for services that falsely promised to prevent foreclosures or renegotiate troubled mortgages. \nWe are going to have 150,000 demonstrating in XXXX against those criminal activity of Ocwen After it the doors of this filthy pirate mortgage company will be close permanently This is the prce for this {$100000.00} property stolen temporary from me. In XX/XX/XXXXand XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX in order to intimidate me they put XXXX criminals to call me 15-20 a day, making even death threats or claiming they are from US Gov. Grants Dept. or from IRS or from Justice Dept. or even FBI or Police Dept. I suspect that a low-level clerk XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX  is directly responsible for organizing this XX/XX/XXXX looting perform by XXXX since Ocwen and XXXX was the only Institution informed about my trip to XXXX and this action was in ravage to my opposition to their fraudulent and criminal activity. Low level Ocwen clerk XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX  and the low lever worker XXXX from XXXX knew I will be in XXXX ( documenting Ocwens and XXXX forge documents ) informed XXXX  that used XXXX, that used looter XXXX XXXX to loot, vandalize destroy my property in XX/XX/XXXX. Again in a top secret close door knowing that I will not be home to protect from such a criminal attack","date_sent_to_company":"2018-06-09T15:54:08.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"11375","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2931328","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","date_received":"2018-06-09T15:44:09.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In some instances, Ocwen foreclosed on individuals who may have been eligible to save these homes <em>through</em> a loan modification or other loss <em>mitigation</em> 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."]},"sort":[7.9826455,"2931328"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14079791","_score":7.9739914,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Dear CFPB, Re : RESPONSE TO J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANKS STATEMENT REGARDING CFPB COMPLAINT I write to respectfully but urgently dispute the wholly inadequate and disingenuous response submitted by JPMorgan Chase Bank , N.A . ( Chase ) concerning my CFPB complaint. Chase 's response fails to address serious issues of elder financial abuse, institutional negligence, and compliance failures under both federal guidelines and Californias Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act ( EADACPA ), which imposes heightened duties on financial institutions interacting with XXXX \nChases blanket assertion that this matter involved only customer-initiated transactions is a dangerous oversimplification of what federal regulators and California law recognize as a growing epidemic of elder financial exploitation, often masked by the victims own unwitting involvement under manipulation by bad actors. EADACPA explicitly defines such exploitation, where property is obtained from an elder for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, as financial abuse ( XXXX ), irrespective of superficial \" authorization '' obtained through deception. \nBelow are several compelling legal and regulatory deficiencies in Chases handling of this matter, warranting immediate regulatory scrutiny : 1. Failure to Act on Clear Warning Signs in Violation of Interagency Guidance JPMorgan Chase 's assertion that these were merely \" customer-initiated transactions '' dangerously ignores the critical obligations financial institutions owe under federal guidelines and EADACPAs imposition of a heightened \" duty of care '' for businesses interacting with XXXX, especially when serving vulnerable populations such as XXXX  clients. The XXXX Interagency Guidance on Privacy Laws and Reporting Financial Abuse of Older Adults, issued jointly by the CFPB, Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC, and other federal regulators, provides specific expectations for financial institutions when encountering signs of elder financial exploitation. This includes unusual transaction patterns, sudden changes in banking activity, or other behavior that deviates markedly from a customers established history. \nIn this case, Chase was not only presented with multiple warning signs but failed to escalate them appropriately. As a long-standing Chase customer, my banking behavior prior to Fall XXXX showed no pattern of large, repeated transfers. Suddenly, and without precedent, I began initiating high-value transfers totaling more than {$200000.00} to multiple recipients. This stark deviation from my historical activity constituted clear undue influence and wrongful use of funds under EADACPA 15610.30 and should have triggered Chases fraud detection systems or, at minimum, internal review. \nThe fact that I am a XXXXXXXX XXXX  citizen, and that these transactions were allegedly conducted with unfamiliar entities for opaque business purposes, only reinforces the necessity for elevated scrutiny under federal elder financial protection protocols and EADACPAs mandate to protect elders from precisely this form of exploitation. These red flags are precisely the scenarios envisioned by the Interagency Guidance and EADACPA, which stress that even customer-permitted transactions may constitute exploitation when the elder is manipulated by external bad actors.\n\nBy not investigating these anomalies thoroughly or escalating them to a higher level of scrutiny, Chase failed in its duty to follow regulatory best practices and breached its statutory duty of care under EADACPA. In fact, Chases failure to act on these irregularities may reflect systemic deficiencies in its internal compliance and elder protection protocols. The CFPB has emphasized that financial institutions are on the front lines of identifying and stopping fraud before irreversible harm occurs. In this instance, Chase not only failed to prevent harm, but it also enabled it through passivity and noncompliance. \nThis is not merely a matter of hindsight. The Interagency Guidance was published over a decade ago, and EADACPA has imposed clear duties on institutions since its enactment. Chase, as one of the largest banks in the country, can not credibly claim ignorance. The banks negligence created the perfect environment for the fraud to proceed unchecked. If Chase had intervened when the anomalies first emergedas their federal obligations requirethe ensuing financial devastation could have been mitigated or entirely prevented.\n\nI therefore urge the CFPB to investigate whether Chase has violated the Interagency Guidance standards, failed to uphold its fiduciary responsibilities and EADACPA duties, and whether these systemic failures represent a pattern of institutional neglect toward elder clients vulnerable to financial exploitation. Enforcement action is warranted to compel Chase to adopt necessary corrective measures and redress the harm caused by its inaction. \n\n2. Violation of California Law ( Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 15630.1 ) The State of California has some of the strongest protections in the country against elder abuse, including financial exploitation. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 15630.1 ( d ) ( 1 ) provides as follows : Any mandated reporter of suspected financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult who has direct contact with the elder or dependent adult or who reviews or approves the elder or dependent adult 's financial documents, records, or transactions, in connection with providing financial services with respect to an elder or dependent adult, and who, within the scope of his or her employment or professional practice, has observed or has knowledge of an incident, that is directly related to the transaction or matter that is within that scope of employment or professional practice, that reasonably appears to be financial abuse, or who reasonably suspects that abuse, based solely on the information before him or her at the time of reviewing or approving the document, record, or transaction in the case of mandated reporters who do not have direct contact with the elder or dependent adult, shall report the known or suspected instance of financial abuse by telephone or through a confidential Internet reporting tool, as authorized pursuant to Section XXXX, immediately, or as soon as practicably possible. If reported by telephone, a written report shall be sent, or an Internet report shall be made through the confidential Internet reporting tool established in Section XXXX, within XXXX working days to the local adult protective services agency or the local law enforcement agency. \n\nUnder Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 15630.1, financial institutions are required to report suspected financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult immediately, or as soon as practically possible, by telephone, followed by a written report within two working days. Critically, this duty to report is mandatory, not discretionary, and applies even when the elder customer denies being defrauded, as many victims of manipulation often do. Furthermore, EADACPA provides a civil cause of action against entities that \" take, secrete, appropriate, or retain property for a wrongful use '' ( 15610.30 ) or fail in their duty to prevent such exploitation. Chases failure to report and intervene exposed it to liability under both statutes.\n\nIn this case, Chase Bank has already acknowledged that at least one branch-level employee questioned me about the nature of the high-value transactions. The bank alleges that I confirmed the transactions were business-related. However, the statute does not require certainty or confirmation of abuse to mandate reporting. It only requires reasonable suspicion. The law specifically anticipates scenarios where an elder may not recognizeor may even denythat they are being exploited, due to manipulation, shame, or lack of full understanding. EADACPA expressly recognizes that financial abuse occurs when an elder is deceived into \" voluntarily '' surrendering assets through undue influence, fraud, or coercion ( 15610.30 ( a ) ( 3 ) ).\n\nChase failed to act when it mattered most. If their employee had enough concern to question me, then they had more than enough basis to initiate a mandatory report under California law. Instead, Chase did not report the activity until well after my funds were depleted, and only after it became too late to protect me. This dereliction of duty directly enabled the continuation of fraudulent withdrawals and significantly contributed to my financial devastation. This failure constitutes per se negligence under EADACPA, potentially entitling me to compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, and court costs ( XXXX  ). \nMoreover, Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 15630.1 ( c ) explicitly mandates training for bank employees to recognize warning signs of XXXX abuse and to act on them without hesitation. The failure by Chase to recognize the red flags, despite a clear deviation from my account history, repeated high-value transfers, and XXXX status, reflects a systemic breakdown in their compliance and training programs. Chases late reporting, after the damage was done, further confirms the banks disregard for its statutory duties and its breach of EADACPAs duty of care. \nIt is especially troubling that this failure occurred in multiple branches and over a sustained period. This indicates a lack of internal checks, oversight, or escalation protocolseach of which is expected under Californias regulatory framework. When one branch fails to act, it may be negligence. When multiple locations enable suspicious conduct repeatedly over months, it suggests institutional noncompliance warranting punitive damages under EADACPA XXXX for recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice. \nFurthermore, Chases failure to report extended to a separate XX/XX/XXXX incident where I was defrauded through a XXXX business loan scam. In my attempt to meet the scammers demands, I paid approximately {$5000.00} to fraudulent agents and made XXXX payments via Chase to XXXX XXXX ( {$1300.00} on XX/XX/XXXX, {$1700.00} on XX/XX/XXXX, {$250.00} on XX/XX/XXXX, and {$1000.00} on XX/XX/XXXX ). \nI reported this fraud in person to a Chase official named XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA ) branch on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, XXXX. No action was taken, and XXXX was not notified as required. In a XX/XX/XXXX call, Chase confirmed these visits and my contact with XXXX but admitted no notes were taken. \nEven worse, Chase delayed reporting to XXXX for months, only acting after I filed this CFPB complaint. XXXX agent XXXX XXXX received a referral ( bank unnamed ) on XX/XX/XXXX, and visited my home on XX/XX/XXXX, weeks after my final fraudulent transfer ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and only after regulatory pressure. This pattern of belated reporting underscores institutional disregard for statutory duties. \nChases failure to act upon observable patterns of exploitation violates not only state law but also undermines the very intent of elder financial protection policies. The consequence of this failure has left me financially destitute, emotionally distressed, and physically vulnerable. \n\nXXXX. Failure to Follow Its Own Risk Controls and Duty of Care JPMorgan Chase Banks handling of the transactions at issue reflects a deep institutional failure to uphold its fiduciary duty, adhere to its own internal risk controls, and apply industry-standard safeguards for elder clients in violation of EADACPAs imposition of a duty of care ( XXXX ). As one of the largest financial institutions in the United States, Chase has long touted its robust fraud detection systems, Know Your Customer ( KYC ) protocols, and customer-first policies. However, none of these safeguards were applied meaningfully in my case. \nAs a Chase customer for many years, my account had established, predictable activity : modest, consistent monthly balances and no history of high-volume business-to-business wire transfers. Beginning in Fall XXXX, I initiated large, repeated transfers to unfamiliar recipients. These transactions totaled over {$200000.00} and represented a XXXX departure from my historical activity. Chases internal fraud systems, which are designed to flag anomalous behavior, failed to detect or act on these changes. This failure constitutes a breach of its duty of care to a vulnerable elder under XXXX XXXX. \nBanking institutions are not passive conduits of customer will. They have both a legal and operational obligation to assess the legitimacy of unusual financial activity, particularly when the customer is XXXX. This is not an abstract or novel standard. It is enshrined in federal anti-fraud frameworks and industry best practices. Chase had both the technology and the duty to identify the fraud scheme in progress. Its failure to do so demonstrates a systemic breakdown or a negligent disregard for customer protection. \nThe duty of care is heightened when the bank is dealing with an elderly, long-term account holder showing signs of financial irregularity. Even according to Chases own XXXX Account XXXX ( XXXX ), which encourages customers to review statements for irregular activity, the bank still retains the right and responsibility to block, investigate, or flag suspicious transactions. Chase did none of those things. Its inaction facilitated the \" taking '' and \" wrongful use '' of my property, meeting XXXX 's definition of financial abuse ( XXXX ). \nChases excuse that the transactions were customer-initiated ignores the regulatory and ethical requirement to investigate when multiple high-risk markers are triggered. This includes ( XXXX ) account holder age, ( XXXX ) sudden transaction volume spikes, ( XXXX ) recipient accounts newly added, ( XXXX ) opaque business purposes, and ( XXXX ) known fraud patterns such as pig butchering scams. Had any of these markers alone been investigated, the fraud might have been interrupted. In combination, they formed an unmistakable profile of financial exploitation requiring intervention under XXXX. \nAdditionally, no XXXX ever required additional verification or approval, despite the fact that these transactions were not typical for my account and would have represented high-risk events under even the most lenient fraud detection models. This suggests that Chase either failed to employ such models or chose not to act on the information they produced. \nThe impact of this failure is not theoretical, it is quantifiable, deeply personal, and devastating. I have lost my savings, my credit is in ruins, and I am now facing mortgage pressure and potential bankruptcy. Chases indifference in the face of its own data, policy obligations, and duty of care can not be excused and warrants the full range of remedies available under XXXX, including restitution, compensatory damages, and attorneys fees. \nThe CFPB should treat this matter as a demonstration of Chases systemic noncompliance and evaluate whether their risk control protocols meet federal expectations for fraud mitigation, especially when elder exploitation is at stake. A failure to investigate and act must result in institutional accountability. \n\nXXXX. Obfuscating Liability Through XXXX Chase Banks core defense that the fraudulent transactions in question were customer-initiated and therefore not subject to reimbursement grossly misrepresents the legal and regulatory landscape concerning authorized fraud and elder financial exploitation. This defense reflects not only a misapplication of fraud classifications but also an intentional obfuscation of Chases institutional responsibilities in preventing scam-induced transactions, especially when the customer is elderly and vulnerable. \nThe banks position relies on a narrow, self-serving interpretation of what constitutes fraud. While it is true that under Regulation XXXX of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, unauthorized transactions typically trigger reimbursement requirements, this case does not fall cleanly into that framework. Instead, it concerns a scenario the CFPB has extensively documented and warned the public about : scams involving social engineering and psychological manipulation that lead victims to \" authorize '' their own financial ruin. These are widely recognized as authorized fraud cases, where the transaction is technically permitted by the account holder, but only because the customer has been deceived, coerced, or manipulated. \nIn this situation, I was targeted through a pig butchering scheme that gradually manipulated me into believing I was entering a legitimate business venture. Like thousands of similarly situated scam victims, I was coaxed into making large transfers to what I believed were authentic business recipients. The banks involved, including Chase, facilitated these transactions without adequate internal scrutiny or protective friction, even when my transactional activity drastically diverged from my prior account history. \nImportantly, Chases claim that these were voluntary transactions and thus beyond its responsibility is not supported by federal guidance on elder financial abuse. The CFPB, XXXX, and the FTC all recognize that elders are uniquely susceptible to XXXX  exploitation and often do not recognize fraud until it is too late. It is precisely for this reason that financial institutions are held to higher standards of vigilance and intervention when sudden, anomalous activity arises in an elder customers account. \nFurthermore, Chases own fraud protection policies in other jurisdictions undermine its defense here. As I previously noted, Chase XXXX offers fraud protection for authorized fraud transactions, recognizing the ethical and reputational harm in allowing vulnerable customers to be financially destroyed while the bank takes no responsibility. That Chase XXXX disclaims this obligation, despite operating under the same brand, ethos, and customer trust, highlights a troubling inconsistency that must be addressed by U.S. regulators. \nChase can not escape liability by hiding behind contract language and technical definitions of authorization. When its fraud detection systems fail, when its staff observe but do not act upon irregularities, and when its customer is an elderly individual experiencing manipulation, the bank has crossed from neutrality into complicity. These are not merely business decisionsthey are failures of care, compliance, and conscience. \nThe CFPB should treat this definitional shell game for what it is : a regulatory avoidance strategy. It must be rejected. Chase must not be allowed to benefit from its refusal to modernize its fraud protections in light of emerging scam typologies, especially those that exploit XXXX \n\n5. Institutional Liability for Enabling Fraud Infrastructure JPMorgan Chase Banks role in this case goes beyond passive negligence, it actively enabled the infrastructure that allowed this fraud scheme to succeed. By approving and maintaining multiple recipient business accounts that received illicit transfers from my account, Chase facilitated the operation of a pig butchering scam targeting a vulnerable XXXX The presence of this infrastructure within the banks own system exposes it to institutional liability for allowing its platform to be used in the commission of financial elder abuse. \nPig butchering scams often rely on a network of recipient accounts created for the sole purpose of laundering funds extracted from victims. These accounts are typically opened under legitimate-sounding business names, but their true purpose is fraudulent. In my case, I was instructed to transfer funds from my Chase business account to other Chase business accounts allegedly belonging to parties involved in an herbal product supply agreement. I later learned these accounts were set up under false pretenses and were used to funnel money to international actors as part of a fraud ring. Chases facilitation of these transfers constitutes \" aiding and abetting '' the financial abuse of an elder under EADACPA principles. \nAt no point did Chase question the legitimacy of these recipient accounts, despite the fact that they were receiving large and sudden transfers from a XXXX customer with no prior history of high-volume transactions. It is the responsibility of financial institutions to monitor not only outgoing transactions but also inbound flows to newly created accounts, especially when they fit well-documented fraud profiles. This failure reflects a reckless disregard for its duty to prevent exploitation under EADACPA XXXX\n\nMoreover, many of the recipient accounts receiving these transfers were opened at different Chase branches across the U.S., suggesting a broader pattern that should have triggered internal fraud alerts. This activity is precisely what modern anti-money laundering ( AML ) systems are designed to detect, yet Chase failed to act. If one Chase branch is enabling high-volume deposits into a newly opened business account, and another Chase branch is facilitating suspicious outgoing transfers to it from an elderly customer, the banks systems should correlate these events and escalate for review. That did not happen here. This systemic failure makes Chase liable for permitting the financial abuse to occur. \nChases failure to flag and investigate the destination accounts makes it more than a bystanderit became a conduit. As courts have increasingly recognized, when banks provide the financial rails used by fraudsters and fail to take preventive action despite obvious red flags, they may be liable for aiding and abetting or negligently enabling fraud. This is particularly true when the victim is part of a protected class, such as an elderly consumer under California law.\n\nAdditionally, the lack of any meaningful Know Your Customer ( KYC ) due diligence in approving these accounts further supports institutional liability. Chase has never explained what steps, if any, it took to verify the legitimacy of the recipient entities or to track the outflow and inflow of substantial sums across its business customer network. This lack of diligence directly facilitated the \" taking '' and \" wrongful use '' of my property, satisfying EADACPAs definition of financial abuse ( XXXX ). \nI respectfully request that the CFPB investigate Chases onboarding, monitoring, and internal control procedures for business accounts involved in this and similar elder-targeting scams. If one victim like me can be exploited through Chases network of accounts, there are likely others. This matter demands systemic review, and Chase must be held accountable for enabling financial exploitation through its own commercial platform.\n\n6. Ongoing Harm, Distress, and Financial Ruin What distinguishes XXXX financial abuse from other forms of fraud is not just the monetary lossit is the cascading and often permanent damage to the victims emotional, physical, and financial well-being. In my case, the unchecked and unchallenged fraud facilitated by JPMorgan Chase Bank has left me not only destitute but also psychologically traumatized, on the brink of bankruptcy, and living with the grim consequences of a breach of trust by the very institution tasked with safeguarding my assets. EADACPA exists precisely to address such devastating outcomes and provides for comprehensive remedies, including compensatory damages for economic losses and emotional distress, punitive damages for reckless conduct, attorneys fees, and costs ( XXXX  ). \nI am a XXXXXXXX XXXX  who lived a financially modest but stable life. I was targeted not just because I had money, but because I was perceived, accurately, as someone vulnerable to manipulation. The fraud scheme I fell victim to was not an isolated incident ; it was part of a larger pattern of what experts now classify as pig butchering scams. These scams deliberately isolate victims, use social and professional deception, and create the illusion of opportunity. They are especially dangerous to older adults, who often trust authority and may lack the digital literacy to identify spoofed communications or fake platforms.\n\nAs a direct result of this fraud, enabled by Chases inaction, I have lost over {$200000.00}. The financial devastation is only the beginning. I now face mounting debt obligations, including mortgage pressures that threaten my housing stability. My credit rating has been irreparably harmed, impacting my ability to finance essentials or obtain emergency resources. The emotional fallout has been no less severe. The shame, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX stemming from this exploitation have become part of my daily reality. Compounding this, Chase Bank has closed my account due to fraud, making it impossible to independently assess the full transaction history or quantify the total losses. \nAccording to studies cited in the Interagency Guidance on XXXX  abuse, victims of financial exploitation are three times more likely to die prematurely than similarly situated individuals. This is not an exaggeration, it is a warning rooted in public health data.\n\nWorse still, Chase has offered no meaningful recourse. The bank 's response not only denied reimbursement but also ignored the evident trauma I have endured. Its refusal to acknowledge its role in facilitating the abuse and in failing to act when warning signs were visible, has added to my distress. Instead of being treated as a client in crisis, I was treated as a procedural burden. \nI have also experienced a lack of empathy and urgency from Chase 's internal systems. It was only after the damage was complete that Chase filed a delayed report to Adult Protective Services, resulting in a home visit from XXXX  last week. But that action came far too late to prevent my financial ruin. This delay underscores the very problem I have outlined throughout this complaint : Chase had opportunities to act earlier but chose not to.\n\nThe CFPB has repeatedly acknowledged the seriousness of XXXX  financial abuse and its societal toll. This case is a vivid example of the damage that results when a major banks duty of care collapses under the weight of procedural shortcuts, profit priorities, or regulatory complacency. I implore the Bureau not to treat this as an individual complaint but as a test case for broader enforcement. If this can happen to me, it can happen to countless others. \nOnly meaningful regulatory pressure, penalties, and structural reforms will restore trust, and only full restitution will begin to repair the damage I have suffered. In consideration of the foregoing, I respectfully urge the CFPB to exercise its regulatory oversight and : a. Formally investigate Chase Banks conduct in this matter for possible violations of elder protection laws and failure to adhere to CFPB-endorsed Interagency Guidelines ; b. Assess whether Chase violated the spirit or letter of Californias mandatory elder abuse reporting law, particularly Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 15630.1 ; c. Mandate that Chase reimburse the fraudulently induced transfers, given its admitted failure to report suspected abuse and its violation of the duty of care ; d. Mandate that Chase reopen my bank account and grant me unfettered access to my account ; and e. Issue supervisory guidance or public enforcement actions aimed at improving institutional response to pig butchering and similar elder-targeted scams. \n\n\nRespectfully, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX. \nXXXX XXXX, CA XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-14T19:59:19.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"92026","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14079791","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-06-14T19:48:39.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Chases indifference in the face of its own data, policy obligations, and duty of care can not be excused and warrants the full range of remedies available under XXXX, <em>including</em> restitution, compensatory damages, and attorneys fees. \nThe CFPB should treat this matter as a demonstration of Chases systemic noncompliance and evaluate whether their <em>risk</em> control protocols meet federal expectations for fraud <em>mitigation</em>, especially when elder exploitation is at stake."]},"sort":[7.9739914,"14079791"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16135684","_score":7.8268185,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"I. Nature of Complaint I am submitting this urgent complaint regarding systemic violations of federal regulations by both Mohela and the U.S. Department of Education, which have resulted in severe and ongoing harm to my financial situation and personal well-being. Despite my previous complaint ( ID XXXX ), submitted on XX/XX/year>, Mohela has failed to respond within the mandated timeframe established by the CFPB. I urgently require CFPB intervention to rectify these injustices and mitigate the profound consequences that have arisen from their unlawful practices. Both entities have a shared responsibility to uphold the principles of consumer protection, and both should face accountability for their actions. \n\nXXXX. Summary of Hardship I am a XXXX parent with an XXXX son, currently living in a hotel due to the financial strain caused by Mohelas actions compounded by the Department of Education 's inaction .\n\nMy income of {$960.00} per month is dramatically insufficient to meet my living expenses, particularly with hotel rates exceeding {$1100.00} biweekly.\n\nThe derogatory marks placed on my credit report by Mohela directly prevent me from obtaining necessary funding and housing stability. This ongoing predicament has led to severe emotional distress and places me and my child at risk of eviction. \n\nWithout immediate action to rectify these inaccuracies and remove the damaging entries, I face the very real possibility of homelessness. \n\nXXXX. Statement of Facts Failure to Respond and Continued Misreporting Mohela ignored the CFPBs established response timeframe for Complaint ID XXXX and continued to furnish materially inconsistent and derogatory information on the same account ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nMy 3-Bureau Credit Report dated XX/XX/year>, evidences contradictory reporting : XXXX  : Over 120 days past due balance {$2100.00} Experian : Pays as agreed balance {$1200.00} TransUnion : Delinquent / Closed by consumer balance {$1200.00} Statutory Violations Identified FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) / 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) knowingly furnishing inaccurate information.\n\nFCRA 1681e ( b ) duty to ensure maximum possible accuracy.\n\nFCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) / 623 ( b ) duty to conduct a reasonable investigation upon notice.\n\n12 C.F.R. 1022.43 ( e ) ( 1 ) ( Regulation V ) reinvestigation requirements before reporting.\n\nContinuing to furnish derogatory data during dispute in violation of 623 ( a ) ( 2 ). \n\nSupporting case law XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nUnjust XXXX and Fraudulent Billing Mohela financially benefitted from securitization that extinguished my personal obligation once the receivables were transferred into a trust and sold to investors. Despite having already received consideration from that sale, Mohela continues to : Bill and collect as though it were the creditor and owner of the receivable, when in fact it sold and derecognized the receivable.\n\nRepresent itself as principal/creditor rather than a limited servicer, which under accounting and securitization law can only collect on behalf of the trust or true Holder in Due Course. \n\nAssert standing and ownership rights inconsistent with GAAP, specifically XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Transfers and Servicing ).\n\nApplicable FAS 140 / Derecognition Principles Once receivables are sold, the transferor can not continue to report or treat them as assets ( 16 ).\n\nServicing rights ownership ; a servicer acts only for the trust.\n\nRepurchase is possible only for breach of representations.\n\nConsideration received = extinguishment of beneficial ownership.\n\nSale standards under 9 ( ac ) : no repurchase rights, transferee must have unrestricted control, and assets placed beyond reach of transferor.\n\nMohelas continued collection and reporting constitutes unjust enrichment and fraud, amounting to double recovery and misrepresentation of creditor status.\n\nDeceptive Practices ( FDCPA / UDAAP ) Mohelas continued billing and furnishing of student loan obligations after selling them into securitization pools constitutes false representation of creditor status under FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692e, 1692f ) and violates UDAAP standards.\n\nIV. Immediate Remedial Actions Requested Immediate Credit Relief : remove all derogatory information and update accounts as Paid as Agreed / Closed in Good Standing.\n\nCease & Desist of Unlawful Activity : halt collection on securitized loans, confirm lack of standing.\n\nFinancial Transparency : GAAP-compliant accounting and disclosure of transfers and contracts.\n\nRegulatory Enforcement : CFPB enforcement for failure to respond to prior complaint ; referral to SEC, FTC, DOJ.\n\nMonetary Restitution & Damages : statutory and actual damages, emotional distress, punitive damages.\n\nEquitable Relief : declaratory judgment that securitized instruments are unenforceable ; injunction against further collection without proof of true ownership.\n\nV. Legal Basis for Compensation Mohelas conduct demonstrates willful violations of the FCRA, FDCPA, and GAAP. Specifically : Continuing to report after receiving sale proceeds violates XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX derecognition standards.\n\nCollecting without ownership constitutes unjust enrichment and fraudulent billing.\n\nVI. Damages & Exposure Calculations Statutory, actual, and punitive damages are calculated at a minimum exposure of {$120000.00}, exclusive of interest and ongoing harm.\n\nVII. Harm & Impact Significant credit score reduction.\n\nDenials of credit, housing, insurance.\n\nEmotional distress for me and my child. \n\nXXXX. Additional Compensatory Demands : Double Enforcement and Unauthorized Use To ensure clarity of issues and to prevent denial of relief based on omission, I specifically demand the following : Compensation for Unauthorized Use of Notes or Securities I demand {$500000.00} XXXX  in compensation for Mohelas unauthorized assignment, placement, and use of my notes or securities without my written consent or acknowledgment, and without proper compensation. This includes pain and suffering, reputational harm, and damage to my creditworthiness and pursuit of happiness. \n\nEnforcement of Rights under the XXXX  Pursuant to XXXX XXXX through XXXX, I invoke my real defenses of fraud in the factum, material alteration, and wrongful acquisition of notes. I define stolen as Mohela or related entities acquiring promissory notes without paying value, violating both XXXX XXXX and GAAPs matching principle. Title can not pass without consideration.\n\nAdequate Assurance of Due Performance I demand return of my original applications and promissory notes for inspection, including access to stamps, endorsements, and post-execution alterations, to ensure authenticity and lawful handling.\n\nXXXX. Demand for Urgent Response All actions must be completed and confirmed in writing within 15 days. Failure to comply will constitute willful noncompliance under the FCRA and grounds for enforcement escalation. and VERIFIED PETITION FOR EQUITABLE ACCOUNTING, DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST in the Delaware XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXX, Unjust Enrichment, and Constructive Trust for The-consumer has a right to know : What exactly is the credit instrument being created? \nWhat is money in this transaction? \nWhat is equivalent to money here? \nWhat is the asset being transferred? \nWhat is the actual funding source? \nWho is intended to be paid back under the law? \nWhat risk is actually assumed by the Respondent? \nWere the GAAP Matching Principles Applied? \n\nXXXX Supporting Documentation ( As listed : credit reports, hotel receipts, eviction evidence, CFPB complaint confirmation, indenture/securitization disclosures, etc. )","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-23T13:45:29.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"19702","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16135684","timely":"No","company_response":"Untimely response","submitted_via":"Web","company":"MOHELA","date_received":"2025-09-23T12:17:06.000Z","state":"DE","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Need information about your loan balance or loan terms"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Enforcement of Rights under the XXXX  Pursuant to XXXX XXXX <em>through</em> XXXX, I invoke my real defenses of fraud in the factum, material alteration, and wrongful acquisition of notes. I define stolen as Mohela or related entities acquiring promissory notes without paying <em>value</em>, violating both XXXX XXXX and GAAPs matching principle. Title can not pass without consideration."]},"sort":[7.8268185,"16135684"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10981005","_score":7.6918726,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, DC XXXX\nThis is to complain against RIA XXXX: HIGH\nIMPORTANCE: HIGH\n[WITHOUT PREJUDICE]\nI wish to practice my right as a customer of RIA to use your organisation's service, seeking a formal,\nimpartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute with RIA.\nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to RIA respecting my\ncomplaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a\ndeeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and\ncomprehensive fashion.\nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these\nfraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognise that I am the victim of an investment scam.\nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct\nof RIA to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service\nto look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional\nrelationship and way of working with its customers.\nDuring the complaints process with RIA, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides\ntheir conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are struggling to\nadapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a\nreal problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and regulations of\nCFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients.\nGeneral Obligation:\nCommencing on XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by XXXX XXXX (the Fraudsters or Company).\nMoney was transferred from my account in the total amount of XXXX XXXX.\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries\ninclude, but are not limited to, the following (i)\nwhether RIA did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material\nelements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my\nfinancial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of RIAs custodianship over my funds or by its control over them,\nthey owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached; (iii) whether RIA\npromoted the transaction(s) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction(s) in question\n(iv) whether RIA was in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether RIA owed duties\nto myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether RIA did not uphold those duties; (vi) whether\nRIAs conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether RIA has within its power the ability to, and should,\ncompensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member\nadequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent\nand nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant\ncriteria of fraud.\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and\nskill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not\nturn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In\nother words, RIA must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real\npossibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have\nknown that I was dealing with a scammer.\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a\nsense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective\nelement.\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not\naverage care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is\nreasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of\nthe evidence suggests that RIA did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers\nin this respect.\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the\nstandard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the\npast.\nRIAs Position:\nPlease find attached all relevant evidence below.\nRIA conspicuously touts their security as a reason to use their service. Specifically, RIA writes on\ntheir website:\nWe work hard to protect you from fraud. That's why we:\n Apply best-in-class security technologies expertise to protect you 24/7, all year round.\n Secure every method of banking we offer including online, mobile, ATM and telephone\nbanking.\n Offer free security software from our trusted tech partners to download on to your devices.\n Frequently train our employees on the latest practices in cyber and physical security.\n Give you the security tips and resources you need to protect yourself from potential threats.\nRefuting RIAs arguments from a purely logical perspective:\nRIAs position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect\ninnocent and helpless victims; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are\ndoomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful\nchoice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves\neven though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint.\nIn RIAs view, it is implied that we should not home in (and consequently rely) on unwritten laws,\npracticality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when\ntaking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense\nand are wildly irresponsible.\nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make RIA morally obligated to do\nsomething is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if RIA encounter the suffering of\ntotally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree\nrequired by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as RIA.\nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by RIA carefully, and it unfortunately provides no response to\nmy fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its\ndisposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to\ndetermine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to\nintervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind.\nIt is perfectly obvious that RIA, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key\nquestions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than\nits own interests.\nIt is RIA here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say,\nthat RIA adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive\nexperience compared to mine. It is RIA that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection\nto this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has\nnot been, commensurate with RIAs capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To\nreemphasize, RIAs indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a\nblind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and\ncapitalising on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity.\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all RIA has done in this regard is set up a\ndichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go\none-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions\ncan, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.\nRIA is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being\nperpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the\ncustomer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that\nmight occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers\nwho might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary\nactions to prevent or minimise financial harm.\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a\nservice that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it\nsets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general\npoint, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and\nmethodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised\nand unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to\nthe detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious\ntransactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following\nexamples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple cheque books;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are\ntransactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the\neconomic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no\napparent legal justification.\ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the\ncustomer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the\nsuspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\nRIA are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging\nexperience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to\navert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which\nrequiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and welljustified.\nRather than empathising with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the\nexistence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of\nconsumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled,\npositively contributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability  RIA adopts a rather\ninsouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein.\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to\nensue if no responsibility is adopted by RIA in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why\nthey cannot simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful\nreflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to\ndisregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts,\nthereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\nConclusion:\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is\nabundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall\nfraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their\nundisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital\narena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively\nnavigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in\nthis connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent\npractices.\nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that RIAs business conduct was\ninsufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and\nresponsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too\ncrucial to be taken lightly. RIAs non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice  that is, to\ncompletely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is\ninexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of\nthe patronage of clients like myself.\nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses: a)\nfinancial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b) the fraud in\nquestion was not reasonably foreseeable, or c) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming.\nIt is extremely unfortunate that RIA pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite\nevidence to the contrary.\nIn summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and\ncompanywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint.\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome.\nThank you. XXXX XXXX XXXX\nXXXX  THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\nXXXX XXXX XXXX\nTo: RIA\nXXXX XXXX, California , United States\nVia Email\n[Without Prejudice]\nAttn: Complaints/Fraud Dept.\nDear Sir or Madam,\nRe: Demand Letter  Fraud\nI hope this letter has correctly found itself within your complaints/fraud department as it is essential to me that\nyou become aware of the ordeal I have had to go through.\nCommencing on XXXX XXXX I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by XXXX XXXX (the Fraudsters or Company) with the design, development, manufacturing, promoting,\nmarketing, distributing, labeling, and/or sale of illegal and outright fraudulent investment services, all of\nwhich aim at contributing to the goal of robbing and defrauding clients through a predetermined cycle of the\nclient losses to gains.\nMoney was transferred from my account in the total amount of XXXX XXXX utilizing your services.\nOVERVIEW\n This letter shall thrust into the spotlight, inter alia, the increasingly important role those financial\ninstitutions play in the fight against financial crime and fraud, and the pressing need for enhanced\nsupervision and vigilance within your organization.\n Heres an indisputable fact: had you looked at the wider circumstances surrounding the abovereferenced\ntransaction(s), this illicit transfer of wealth could have been prevented.\n Obviously, there is no consensus with respect to the degree and scope to which regulated and licensed\nfinancial institutions must intervene and block suspicious transactions, and indeed, in so doing,\nfinancial institutions may often cause payments to be slowed down unnecessarily or even some\nlegitimate payments may be rejected, however, please be noted that additional frictions such as slower\npayments (such as delaying payments or freezing funds to investigate) is beneficial to and welcomed\nby vulnerable customers and is widely considered to be a positive practice that is necessary in order to\nmaintain their financial safety, particularly for large-value and/or out of pattern.\n Executing transactions without proper authority is not only a severe regulatory offense but also an\nirresponsible and reckless disregard of the customers financial safety.\n Against this background, and without derogating any of my rights, I hereby hold you liable for\nfinancial and emotional harm as well as medical problems relating to this victimization and insist that\nyou reimburse my account in full within 14 days from the date of this letter.\nINTRODUCTION\nFinancial crimes and fraud investigations often involve a high degree of sophistication, complexity, and\nsensitiveness to detail. Accordingly, this letter aims to address the issue at hand as profoundly and fairly as\npossible, by taking into consideration contextual regulations, laws, and bylaws, as well as guidance, standards\nand rules promoted by supervisory authorities, relevant codes of practice and (where suitable) what was good\nindustry practice (GIP) at all times relevant hereto. The allegations contained herein are predicated either\nupon knowledge with respect to myself and my own experience, or upon facts obtained through investigations\nconducted by qualified third parties. I strongly believe that substantive evidence in support of the allegations\nset forth herein will be found after an appropriate opportunity for discovery. Key facts supporting the\nallegations contained herein are known only to the Company and/or are exclusively within their control.\nThe Company cleverly orchestrated a prevalent scheme of deception to lead people to invest significant sums\nwhile knowing that those would-be investors would ultimately lose the money, they had entrusted to it. The\noverall purpose of the scheme, in other words, was to target and defraud people who are often inexperienced\nand naive, in pursuance of illicit wealth through various fraudulent representations.\nI did not know, and through the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have discovered, the fraud\nthat was being perpetrated upon me by the Company. Fraud is commonly conceptualized as withholding\nfrom the weaker party in a financial transaction (e.g., an investor) information which is necessary to make an\ninformed, rational or autonomous decision.\nIn this regard, even access to adequate information is insufficient to achieve complete autonomy. A\ncomplication here is that the weaker party, amateur/unseasoned investors in particular, might have trouble\nanalyzing the data at hand sufficiently well to identify fraudulent schemes. Unfortunately, because financial\nproducts are often abstract and complex, there is no easy solution to this problem. Therefore, full autonomy of\ninvestors might not only require access to sufficient information, but also access to relevant technologies,\nknow-how, processing capabilities, and resources to analyze the information. A reasonable solution is that\nfinancial institutions would be required to promote transparent communication in which they track the\nunderstanding of its customers.\nAccording to the Federal Trade Commissions interpretations of certain terms (like the words deceptive and\nunfair), the FTC has found that a deceptive act or practice encompasses a representation, omission or\npractice that is likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumers\ndetriment.\nThe federal courts have defined a deceptive trade practice [i] as any act or practice that has the tendency or\ncapacity to deceive consumers and have defined an unfair trade practice as any act or practice that offends\npublic policy and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.\nThe false representations and omissions made by the Company have a tendency or capacity to deceive\nconsumers, such as myself, into unwittingly providing funds that fueled the Companys fraudulent scheme\nand are therefore, by their very nature, jointly immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and\nsubstantially injurious to consumers.\nAs a result of the Companys deceptive trade practices, I was deceived into transferring my funds for\ninvestment returns that were never delivered. I will certainly never receive any monetary value for the\ninvestments considering the way the Company had their scheme rigged, thus causing significant economic\ndamage to me. The false statements of material facts and omissions as described above; and the fraudulent\ntransaction(s) the Company perpetrated upon me; were unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive practices which\nwould have likely deceived any reasonable person under the circumstances.\nMERCHANTS FRAUD SCHEME  ALLEGATIONS\nThe Company hired, managed, and trained personnel, and collaborated with others as accomplices to\ntheir crimes to induce fraud that resulted in my financial and psychological damages. These include,\nbut are not limited to, the following allegations, all of which involve criminal, non-regulated, and\nmalicious activities:\n1. The Company directed and instructed others to work from shell companies that were operating\nfrom various unassociated locations across the globe.\n2. The Company opened bank accounts in multiple countries and used them through their\naccomplices and strawmen from around the world to conceal and disguise the identity of\nillegally obtained proceeds so that they appear to have originated from legitimate sources.\n3. The Company intentionally committed fraudulent misrepresentation, and falsified its agent names,\ncredentials, competencies, qualifications and location. The Companys name is merely a brand name,\nofficially owned by shell corporations located offshore. In reality, the entire operation is being\nconducted from elsewhere (supposed location is evidently fictitious), and on top of that the call center,\nmarketing, and decision making, are all being performed by completely anonymous and hidden\nentities. Concealing true identities and utilizing front companies as a vehicle for a wide spectrum\nof financial maneuvers is a notorious practice of criminal organizations.\n4. The Company has blatantly violated international laws, as it has been practicing without a\nlicense and funneling enormous sums of money, through countries and jurisdictions that require\nregistration to operate.\n5. The Company provided direct investment advice - not utilizing 3rd party recommendations (e.g.,\naccording to Bloomberg TV/Investing.com)\n6. The Company offered investment services/advice not related to real market/exchange data\n(manufacturing false charts etc.). The trading platform was purposely manipulated, in a way that\neach client would ineluctably and unknowingly lose money, as the trades were simply\nconcocted. Instead, the Companys staff and its accomplices simply pocketed the money, using\nit to purchase various luxurious, non-essential items.\n7. The Company prohibited my ability to withdraw my funds.\n8. The Company was guaranteeing returns/yields (unrealistic ones).\n9. The Company furnished me with bonuses - which are not allowed to be given.\n10. My money was not held in a segregated account.\n11. The Company did not advertise/disclose/was not transparent regarding the statistical data representing\nthe percentage of total client losses at the company.\n12. The Company did not mention the commission and overnight swaps.\n13. The Company did not read the risk disclosure prior to my deposit(s).\n14. The Company used high pressure tactics and outbursts, which took a severe toll on my health.\n15. Armed with my personal details, the Companys staff seduced me into transferring all of my\nsavings to them. They utilized their knowledge of my cultural context, which stressed square\nand honorable business dealings along with honesty, in order to maliciously take advantage of\nmy trusting nature.\nPlease take notice that my funds were transferred through means of coercion and under false pretenses.\nAttached, please find supportive statements, screenshots, and further evidence.\nEXPOSING YOUR ORGANIZATIONS MISCONDUCT\nI hereby allege that your organization has completely failed to adequately investigate the circumstances\nsurrounding the transaction(s) in question and willfully blinded itself to obvious red flags.\nMany suspicions should have arisen at your organization as an issue of great concern, with respect to the\nunusual activity taking place in my account. Despite the regulatory and statutory requirements your\norganization should abide by as a licensed and regulated financial institution  and instead of detecting\npatterns, drawing certain conclusions, and taking actions accordingly you at best, merely and insufficiently\nperformed some hasty and haphazard reviews of the transaction(s) or possibly asked only minimal generic\nquestions regarding the suspicious activities, and at worst, shut your eyes completely rather than being careful,\nmethodical, and vigilant. Had you bothered, you would probably have realized that the funds were associated\nwith fraud and financial crime, rather than some other legitimate revenue/activity.\nIn light of the above, and after conducting a comprehensive review of our communication/interactions,\nit has become glaringly obvious to me that no adequate information and/or documentation were sought\nby your organization, at best, and at worst no appropriate safeguards were implemented.\nIf a financial institution executes a customer order to transfer money knowing it to be dishonestly given,\nshutting its eyes to the obvious fact of the dishonesty, or acting recklessly in failing to make such inquiries as\nan honest and reasonable individual would undergo, it would be in breach of its duty of care, even if the\npayment was made in accordance with the terms of the mandate, and the financial institution should still be\nliable for negligence resulting in damages.\nCompliance departments should ensure that staff members understand the legal requirements and where there\nare suspicions, these suspicions be communicated to all relevant personnel whilst being investigated.\nFor the avoidance of doubt, reasonable grounds should not necessarily be interpreted as proof. On the basis of\nvarious signs, you should have assumed that something suspicious was going on therefore should have\nsuspended transaction(s) until reasonable enquiries could be made to verify that the transaction(s)\nwas/were properly executed. In other words, I am a victim of your negligence for facilitating the\nmisappropriation of funds, and doing little to safeguard public financial interests. Any reasonable staff\nmember would have realized that there were many obvious, even glaring, signs that I was being defrauded.\n(XXXX XXXX XXXX (in liquidation) v XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [XXXX] XXXX XXXX) [ii]\nYou knew or should have known that the funds being transferred through your services did not rightfully\nbelong to the recipient fraudsters. Similarly, you knew or should have known that the funds being transferred\nthrough your services serve no legitimate or lawful purpose. You turned a blind eye to the crimes that you\nhave facilitated and thus provided an array of essential money transfer services, acting as a vehicle, with the\nawareness that it was enabling the fraudsters to commit crimes and enrich themselves with the funds of their\nvictims.\nYour services undoubtedly served as a crucial element in the fraudulent scheme detailed herein, and you were\neither unaware of your complicity in the fraud, or, more worryingly, completely aware and silent. Had you\nconducted an adequate account analysis, you would have discovered the nature of the recipient, and\nsubsequently, disclosed and reported the fraudsters activities to law enforcement authorities/agencies and\nregulators. Instead, to satisfy your financial interests, you conveniently closed your eyes, even though you\nundeniably had, at all material times, the necessary controls and resources to influence, whether directly or\nindirectly, those particular transactions.\nYou also had the duty to stop those crimes, yet you refused to do so because you were more interested in\nenriching yourself, even if it meant furthering those crimes and allowing them to cause massive financial\nlosses to plenty of victims  many of whom are probably your customers. Therefore, it is clear that you did\nnot have in place adequate security measures to properly safeguard my assets  hence, you have\nirreparably harmed me and, if not enjoined, will continue to irreparably harm other victims as well as\ntheir loved\nones and associates. You have irreparably harmed me and, if not enjoined, will continue to irreparably\nharm the general public, and our society deserves better.\nA financial institution which wrongly pays money away when it has no authority to do so will usually be\ntreated as if it had paid using its own funds, not those of its customer.\nWhen discussing the responsibilities that a financial institution might incur, it is crucial not to forget the fact\nthat a legitimate complaint by, or cause of action on the part of, a client might generate/give rise to further\nstatutory cause of action and/or additional liabilities beholden by a financial institution to the relevant\nregulatory authority. Obligations/duties beholden by a financial institution to a regulator are distinct from\nthose beholden to the customer. Moreover, you may be held liable to more than one regulator.\nAs a regulated and licensed financial institution, you have strict statutory and regulatory obligations to\nmonitor transactions and report any suspicious activities to law enforcement authorities. The importance of\nimplementing robust internal systems to detect and report money laundering and other suspicious activities\nhas been continuously emphasized in the industry in addition to having the appropriate policies, procedures\nand internal controls in place to ensure ongoing compliance in respect to the aforementioned systems. You\nshould have analysed and distinguished thereafter between that which may be normal activity and that which\ncould suggest an illegal activity. This is a well-known standard industry practice which plays a substantial role\nin preventing criminals from liquidating and laundering funds.\nFRAUD\nActual fraud can be described, inter alia, as suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge or\nbelief of the fact. Therefore, due to your actual knowledge that such scams are so prevalent, you are liable for\ndamages. Similarly, due to the fact that you knew or were grossly negligent in not kn","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-30T09:15:06.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"International money transfer","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10981005","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Ria Envia, LLC","date_received":"2024-11-30T08:54:09.000Z","state":null,"company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Conclusion:\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is\nabundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall\nfraud, or at least <em>mitigate</em> its <em>risk</em> by using an effective <em>risk</em> management system, demonstrating their\nundisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital\narena."]},"sort":[7.6918726,"10981005"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14173139","_score":7.248765,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CFPB Complaint # : XXXX Loan # : XXXX We formally seek regulatory escalation through the CFPB and request immediate intervention, enforcement, and restitution based on Rocket Mortgages pattern of misconduct. Their XX/XX/XXXX response failed to disclose material facts, omitted critical servicing activity, and relied on reputational statements and boilerplate language rather than evidence or legal compliance. \nWe urge Rocket Mortgage to refrain from responding further with slogans or internal \" ISM '' references. These do not cure legal violations nor rebuild trust. At this point, we have no confidence in Rocket 's role as a fair, compliant, or transparent lender, and this matter now demands regulatory, legal, and public scrutiny. \nXXXX. Silent Internal Equity Reduction Concealed Admission ( See Exhibit Z ) At or immediately following the submission of our initial CFPB complaint, Rocket Mortgage silently recalculated our home equity reducing it by over {$43000.00}, from {$460000.00} ( XX/XX/XXXX ) to {$410000.00} ( XX/XX/XXXX ). This was not disclosed in their response to the CFPB, and no communication was made to us as the borrowers. \nThis internal adjustment precisely mirrors the XXXX appraisals submitted as Exhibits A and A1, confirming that the original XXXX XXXX XXXX based on a falsely inflated GLA was materially inaccurate. \n\nWe now formally request : The exact date Rocket executed this internal valuation change. \nA copy of the servicing log or system trigger that recorded the event, Discredit any assertion that this change was a mere \" estimate. '' The amount and timing clearly indicate a deliberate post-complaint correction of prior malpractice Violations : TILA 12 CFR 1026.17 ( material servicing changes not disclosed ) Dodd-Frank 1639e ( b ) ( valuation manipulation ) UDAAP 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( a ) ( deceptive concealment ) XXXX. Inflated XXXX XXXX XXXX Refinance Qualification The appraiser provided an incorrect drawing within appraisal to justify inflated value, creating a non-compliant approval of Refinance. \nIn XXXX, Rocket used an XXXX appraisal reflecting XXXX sq ft, over XXXX sq ft larger than actual XXXX GLA. This inflated our home value to {$480000.00}, justifying a refinance that would not have passed underwriting if based on correct data. The appraisal included an artificial XXXX expansion of the property footprint ( XXXX instead of XXXX ). Rocket has never corrected or invalidated this appraisal. \nXXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX  | XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( disqualifying ) XXXX Inflated Property - Incorrect Drawing Please note this drawing was omitted by Rocket Mortgage in the Consumer Response attachments. Drawing shows a sketch with a XXXX added depth of 28 Violations : TILA 129E / Dodd-Frank Title XIV Appraisal independence and accuracy USPAP False valuation and physical misrepresentation XXXX. False Credit Reporting During CARES Act Forbearance In XX/XX/XXXX, while under a valid CARES Act forbearance due to job loss, Rocket falsely reported us delinquent, in direct violation of federal accommodations. Our dispute was ruled valid by TransUnion, yet XXXX refused to correct the report, sabotaging our XXXX FHA refinance. \nViolations : FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ), CARES Act 4021 UDAAP Retaining control through credit suppression XXXX. Refinance Sabotage and Coerced Equity Forfeiture Rocket in CFPB Stated XXXX, which is clearly incorrect Denied internal refinancing, Leveraged false derogatory reporting to disqualify us externally, Coerced us into a Home Equity Agreement ( HEA ) surrendering 40 % of future equity and mandating sale within 10 years. \nWe were forced to sign under financial duress a direct result of Rockets own misconduct. \nViolations : FCRA / UDAP Coercive conduct Consumer Financial Abuse This exhibit presents evidence of a false delinquency reported by Rocket Mortgage for the account of XXXX and XXXX XXXX. According to the attached credit, Rocket Mortgage reported a missed mortgage payment for XX/XX/XXXX. However, due to standard reporting practices, this entry reflects a missed payment due in XX/XX/XXXX. This false report is a direct violation of the CARES Act amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), and relevant Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) guidance. \nXXXX. Applicable Federal Protections and Violations CARES Act Section 4021 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( F ) ) : Requires that if a consumer was current prior to an accommodation ( such as forbearance, deferment, or modification ), their credit obligation must continue to be reported as current. \nCFPB Guidance XXXX # XXXX & # XXXX : Prohibits furnishing delinquency for any period covered by an accommodation. \nFCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : Prohibits furnishing information to credit bureaus that is inaccurate or incomplete. \nCFPB Guidance XXXX # XXXX & # XXXX : Reporting must reflect the full status of the trade line ; comment codes alone are insufficient. \nXXXX. False Delinquency Reporting by Rocket Mortgage The credit report image shows an orange ' X ' under XX/XX/XXXX. This indicates that Rocket Mortgage reported a missed payment for the month of XX/XX/XXXX, as reporting of late payments is deferred by XXXX month. This delinquency was reported despite the Sciortinos being under hardship accommodation terms related to the COVID-19 pandemic. No payment was actually missed. This reporting led to credit score damage and contributed to a denied refinance application in XXXX. \nXXXX. Resulting Harm Credit score reduction Denial of refinance by XXXX in XXXX Forced Home Equity Agreement resulting in loss of 40 % property equity Legal claims under FCRA, CARES Act, and New Jersey Consumer Fraud statutes XXXX. Coercive XXXX Loan Modification Rocket imposed a XXXX loan without : Disclosing amortization schedules, Revealing the appraisal valuation it was based on, Acknowledging that the XXXX data had been internally corrected. \nThis modification, rooted in fraudulent valuation, created {$190000.00} in additional interest burden, of which {$49000.00} is directly attributable to Rockets misrepresentations.\n\nViolations : TILA 12 CFR 1026.17 Missing material disclosures RESPA / UDAAP Depriving informed consent XXXX. EXHIBIT K : {$230000.00} in Documented Damages Equity Forfeiture ( HEA ) {$140000.00} FHA Refinance Loss {$9600.00} Overpaid Taxes/Insurance/Interest {$13000.00} Credit Defamation {$7500.00} Forced Sale Clause Loss {$6000.00} Legal/Admin Burden {$2500.00} XXXX XXXX {$3300.00} XXXX Loan Interest Premium {$49000.00} Total Financial Harm {$230000.00} XXXX. Public Disclosure and Agency Escalation Given Rockets refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing or offer restitution, we are initiating full public disclosure and regulatory escalation. Rocket dismissed all complaints, offered no Remediations. Our formal complaints are being filed with : Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) HUD Office of Inspector General New Jersey Attorney Generals Office FFIEC Appraisal Subcommittee This case is now a matter of public interest. It reveals the broader risk to American homeowners from lender-manipulated appraisals, forced servicing outcomes, and post-crisis credit defamation. \n\n\n\nRequested Relief : Immediate correction of all false credit entries. \nDisclosure of internal servicing records and equity adjustments.\n\nDisclosure of the internal appraisal or valuation used for the XXXX note. \nFull restitution of {$230000.00} in documented damages. \nRescission of the HEA agreement and restoration of forfeited equity.\n\nFormal referral to CFPB Enforcement, FTC, HUD, NJAG, and FFIEC. \nExhibit Index : Exhibit XXXX XXXX XXXX-Compliant Appraisals XXXX no GLA inflation ) Exhibit XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Fabricated GLA Exhibits F/G TransUnion Disputes and Credit Reports Exhibits XXXX CARES Forbearance Documentation Exhibit J Home Equity Agreement ( HEA ) : XXXX XXXX Forfeiture Agreement & Sale Clause Exhibit K Financial Harm & Damages Summary Exhibit L XXXX XXXX XXXX Amortization Comparison Exhibit Z Rocket Mortgage Portal : Internal Equity Correction Screenshots Link to Exhibits https : XXXX # XXXX Appendix A : Redlined Response to Rocket Mortgage Letter Dated XX/XX/XXXX Borrowers : XXXX & XXXX XXXX CFPB Complaint # : XXXX Loan # : XXXX Rocket Statement # XXXX : \" We did not find any evidence to substantiate the claims raised ... '' Redlined : This statement is conclusory, unsupported by fact, and contradicted by Rockets own internal recalculation of our equitymade silently in timeframe of initial CFPB complaint. Proof provided within Exhibit Z. \nViolation : UDAAP ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( a ) ) A deceptive act includes the withholding of material facts that mislead consumers. \n\n\nSee : Exhibit Z Screenshots showing {$43000.00} equity reduction post-complaint Exhibits XXXX XXXX-compliant appraisals Rocket Statement # XXXX : \" You agreed this was a fair estimated value of your home... '' Redlined : This mischaracterizes consent. We never reviewed nor received the underlying GLA calculation before closing. The \" agreement '' referred to was procedural and without informed disclosure of inflated square footage. \nViolation : TILA 12 CFR 1026.17 Requires disclosure of material terms ( i.e., valuation basis ) USPAP / Dodd-Frank Title XIV Mandates accurate and independent valuation See : Exhibit XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX showing inflated XXXX depth Exhibits C/D XXXX ANSI-compliant appraisals debunking Rockets value Rocket Statement # XXXX XXXX \" Public records at the time supported the GLA ... '' Redlined : Rocket relies on MLS and outdated public recordsneither of which are ANSI-compliant nor sufficient under USPAP. This is circular logic, as prior public records were themselves shaped by previous inflated appraisals. \nViolation : Dodd-Frank 1472/ 15 U.S.C. 1639e Requires independent appraisal ; MLS is not legally sufficient USPAP Standard XXXX ( b ) Misleading reliance on unverifiable third-party data See : Exhibits C, XXXX XXXX verified measurements Exhibit XXXX Fabricated square footage diagram Rocket Statement # XXXX : \" The appraised value did not impact your loan amount ... '' Redlined : This is factually and legally incorrect. The inflated appraisal allowed a loan-to-value ratio high enough to qualify for a refinance that otherwise wouldnt have passed. The modification and current loan would not exist but for the flawed origination. \nViolation : TILA 129E Prevents material misstatement that influences loan qualification UDAAP Facilitating a transaction through misrepresented valuation See : Exhibit J HEA contract ( resulting from inflated LTV ) Exhibit K Documented financial harm including {$140000.00} equity forfeiture Rocket Statement # XXXX : \" You had XXXX business days to cancel ... '' Redlined : The Right to Cancel applies only when the borrower is in possession of all material facts. We were unaware of the false GLA and appraisal misrepresentation until years later. Therefore, the rescission window was legally void. \nViolation : TILA 12 CFR 1026.17 & 1026.23 Requires informed consent with correct valuation RESPA Prohibits closing on false or misleading terms See : Exhibits XXXX, C, D Timeline of corrected appraisals vs. Rockets GLA Rocket Statement # XXXX : \" In XX/XX/XXXX, you were past-due ... '' Redlined : This reference to delinquency ignores our active CARES forbearance protection during this period. Reporting it as delinquent violates federal COVID accommodation laws and CFPB guidance. \nViolation : CARES Act 4021 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( F ) ) Credit must reflect current status if borrower was current before forbearance FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Prohibits furnishing incomplete or inaccurate data CFPB Guidance FAQ # XXXX & # XXXX See : Exhibit H/I Forbearance letters Exhibit G XXXX  dispute results Exhibit F XXXX XXXX screenshot showing false delinquency Rocket Statement # XXXX : \" You did not accept the payment deferral ... '' Redlined : We were left with no other option due to the manufactured delinquency and loan blockage. The XXXX modification and HEA agreement were accepted under economic coercionnot voluntary negotiation. \nViolation : UDAP / UDAAP Economic duress invalidates borrower choice TILA 12 CFR 1026.17 Failure to disclose valuation or amortization RESPA Failure to ensure fair loss mitigation options See : Exhibit J HEA showing 40 % equity forfeiture XXXX XXXX Loan amortization table showing {$49000.00} premium Exhibit K Financial harm summary Rocket Statement # XXXX : \" We are not required to provide a new amortization schedule ... '' Redlined : This is a misstatement. While not required under certain loan types, material modifications to loan term and equity structure trigger TILA and RESPA disclosure obligations. \nViolation : TILA 12 CFR 1026.17 ( c ) ( 1 ) Clear disclosure of payment obligations UDAAP Concealment of economic impact from servicing change See : Exhibit L XXXX vs. XXXX interest breakdown Exhibit J Modification documents with missing schedule Rocket Statement # XXXX : \" Our records confirm the XX/XX/XXXX payment was reported late ... '' Redlined : This was during CARES Act coverage. Rockets system confirms they placed us on forbearance XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX failed to apply the accommodation retroactively or to dispute timeframes. This is an outright violation of federal credit law. \nViolation : CARES Act 4021 No negative reporting allowed for covered periods FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) Failure to correct inaccurate credit data UDAAP Harmful misuse of inaccurate derogatory data See : Exhibits F, G, H, I Forbearance, credit dispute, and credit bureau results Exhibit E Refinance denial linked to false delinquency Rocket Statement # XXXX : \" We trust our response helped clarify your concerns ... '' Redlined : This conclusion ignores the core issues raised : appraisal fraud, silent servicing adjustments, forced equity surrender, and false credit reporting. No evidence or lawful justification was presented in response. \nViolation : UDAAP ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( a ) ) Blanket denials in the face of evidence are deceptive CFPB Complaint Protocol Misleading the regulator constitutes an enforcement trigger See : Exhibit Z Rockets silent equity correction Entire Rebuttal Letter & Exhibits AL [ end of document ]","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-19T19:06:44.000Z","issue":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"07728","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14173139","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Rocket Mortgage, LLC","date_received":"2025-06-19T18:49:56.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Negative impact of inaccurate appraisal"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Violation : TILA 129E Prevents material misstatement that influences loan qualification UDAAP Facilitating a transaction <em>through</em> misrepresented valuation See : Exhibit J HEA contract ( resulting from inflated LTV ) Exhibit K Documented financial harm <em>including</em> {$140000.00} equity forfeiture Rocket Statement # XXXX : \" You had XXXX business days to cancel ... '' Redlined : The Right to Cancel applies only when the borrower is in possession of all material facts."]},"sort":[7.248765,"14173139"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20145800","_score":7.192263,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this complaint to formally document a series of events involving unauthorized ACH debits, merchant processing security failures, and the handling of a fraud investigation by both XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Atlantic Union Bank. This complaint concerns the merchant account used by my business, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, and the business operating account maintained with Atlantic Union Bank.The purpose of this complaint is to request regulatory review of the actions and non-actions of the parties involved, the handling of reported fraudulent transactions, and the failure to provide adequate investigation transparency or remediation.Beginning XX/XX/XXXX, I began preparing my accounting and tax practice for the XXXX tax filing season. This preparation included acquiring tax preparation software, accounting systems, payment processing infrastructure, and operational workflow systems required to serve clients. As a small woman-owned business operating in the tax and accounting field, the majority of annual revenue is generated during the tax season. XXXX for that season required approximately XXXX hours per week between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, representing roughly XXXX hours of operational preparation.Beginning XX/XX/XXXX, multiple debits associated with XXXX XXXX XXXX began appearing in the operating account connected to my business. These transactions included withdrawals of {$610.00} on XX/XX/XXXX ; {$600.00} on XX/XX/XXXX ; {$600.00} on XX/XX/XXXX ; {$98.00} on XX/XX/XXXX ; {$600.00} and {$600.00} on XX/XX/XXXX ; {$600.00} on XX/XX/XXXX ; and a chargeback debit of {$840.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. These withdrawals were not authorized by me.The fraudulent activity was verbally reported to Atlantic Union Bank on XX/XX/XXXX via phone and I was told the XXXX would return my calls. I reported the incident multiple times fromJan XXXX, XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX before it was acted upon.This date should represent the date of notice that the account had been compromised. A Written Statement of Unauthorized Debit was later submitted on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX  XXXX subsequently acknowledged in writing that fraudulent activity occurred on the merchant account. Communications from their fraud investigation team indicated that the fraudulent transactions were associated with exposure of an API key connected to the merchant account through a third-party vendor environment associated with the payment processing system.Despite this acknowledgement from the payment processor that the account credentials were compromised, Atlantic Union Bank later informed me that my fraud claims were denied.During a phone call with Atlantic Union Bank to discuss the matter, I requested confirmation of the status of the fraud investigation. I was informed that two cases existed : Case number XXXX for an amount of {$3700.00} and Case number XXXX for an amount of {$840.00}. I was told that both cases were closed and denied.I requested the name of the investigator responsible for the investigation and the department that handled the matter. I was informed that the bank could not provide the name of the investigator or identify the department responsible.I also requested confirmation of the investigation timeline and the date the investigation had been completed. I was informed that the investigation was completed on XX/XX/XXXX ; however, I was not notified of that determination when it occurred.During the same call I asked why additional transactions were allowed to process after the fraud had been reported on XX/XX/XXXX. I also asked what protective measures had been taken by the bank to prevent further debits after the fraud was reported, including XXXX blocks or merchant debit restrictions. The representative stated that these questions would be passed on to the dispute team but could not provide answers.I also asked whether the bank would reimburse overdraft fees and related charges that resulted from the unauthorized debits and the resulting negative account balance. The representative again stated that this question would be forwarded to the dispute team.The fraudulent activity and the resulting dispute occurred immediately before and during the beginning of tax season. Because the merchant processing system could no longer be trusted, I was forced to transition to a new payment processor and new software systems during the busiest period of the year for my business.In addition to the financial withdrawals themselves, I have spent approximately XXXX hours investigating the incident, compiling documentation, communicating with both XXXX and Atlantic Union Bank, filing a police report documenting the fraud, and reconstructing financial records.The unauthorized debits and the subsequent handling of the investigation caused significant operational disruption to my business during tax season and contributed to the operating account becoming negative. I also received notice indicating that the account could potentially be closed, despite the fact that the negative balance resulted from the disputed fraudulent transactions.I am requesting that the appropriate regulatory authorities review the actions and responses of both XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Atlantic Union Bank with respect to the handling of this matter. Specifically, I request review of the following issues : The security incident involving exposure of merchant API credentials associated with XXXX XXXX XXXX.The unauthorized debits processed through the merchant account infrastructure.The handling of the fraud investigation by Atlantic Union Bank following notice of the fraud on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX denial of the fraud claims despite the payment processors acknowledgement that the account credentials were compromised.The failure to provide transparency regarding the investigator responsible for the determination.The failure to provide timely notice of the investigation outcome.The operational and financial harm resulting from the incident and the delayed resolution.I respectfully request that this matter be reviewed and that any appropriate corrective actions or enforcement measures be taken.Thank you for your time and consideration. \n\nAttachment Re : Notice of Evidence Preservation and Litigation Hold / XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  // XXXX to XXXX  XXXX XXXX and Atlantic Union Bank.eml added.Conversation opened. 1 read message. \n\nSkip to content Using XXXX with screen readers in : sent XXXX of XXXX Re : Notice XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX / XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX // XXXX to XXXX  XXXX XXXX and Atlantic Union Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXe XXXX XXXX ( XXXX minutes ago ) to Legal.Escalations, XXXX, XXXX To the Legal Department XXXX This correspondence constitutes a formal notice of claim and demand for remediation concerning fraudulent activity processed through the merchant account associated with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The account was established through XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, a subsidiary of XXXX XXXX XXXX, and was linked to the business operating account maintained at Atlantic Union Bank. \n\nThe purpose of this notice is to formally document the facts surrounding the incident, provide notice of resulting damages, request preservation of evidence, and provide an opportunity for resolution prior to further regulatory or legal action. \n\nBackground and Relationship Heartland Payment Systems services were introduced to the account holder through an Atlantic Union Bank referral relationship beginning in XX/XX/XXXX. Through that referral, XXXX provided merchant payment processing services to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX. \n\nBeginning XX/XX/XXXX, the firm began preparing operational systems for the upcoming XXXX tax filing season. These preparations included acquisition of tax software, accounting software, payment processing infrastructure, and operational workflow systems required to serve tax clients. Approximately XXXX hours per week were devoted to operational preparation between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, representing approximately XXXX hours of preparation. \n\nThese preparations were designed to allow the firm to operate at full capacity during the XXXX tax filing season, which represents the primary revenue period for the business. \n\nUnauthorized Activity Beginning XX/XX/XXXX, multiple unauthorized debits associated with XXXX merchant processing activity appeared in the operating account held at Atlantic Union Bank. The transactions include, but are not limited to, the following debits reflected in the account history : XX/XX/XXXX {$610.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$600.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$600.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$98.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$600.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$600.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$600.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$840.00} chargeback These withdrawals were not authorized by the merchant. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX acknowledged that fraudulent transactions had occurred on the account. Subsequent correspondence on XX/XX/XXXX further indicated that the fraudulent transactions were believed to have resulted from exposure of an API key associated with the merchant account through a third-party technology vendor connected to the XXXX / XXXX XXXX  infrastructure. \n\nThe merchant did not provide API credentials to any third party and did not operate any online payment portal capable of exposing such credentials. \n\nOperational Impact The fraudulent activity occurred immediately before and during the beginning of the XXXX tax filing season. \n\nAs a direct result of the incident, the firm was forced to discontinue use of the XXXX XXXX  processing system and migrate to a new payment processor and software infrastructure during tax season. This migration required emergency operational changes that significantly disrupted the firms ability to invoice clients and receive payments. \n\nIn addition, the account holder has spent approximately XXXX hours investigating the incident, communicating with financial institutions, compiling documentation, filing reports, consulting cybersecurity professionals, and reconstructing financial records. \n\nThe disruption occurred during the primary operational period for the business and materially interfered with the firms ability to operate during tax season. \n\nPolice Report and XXXX XXXX A police report has been filed documenting the fraudulent activity affecting the business account. \n\nThe unauthorized withdrawals, related chargebacks, overdraft fees, operational disruption, and forced migration of payment systems caused significant financial harm to the business and placed the operating account in a negative condition. \n\nThe total financial impact of the incident is currently being reconstructed through a detailed forensic accounting analysis and is expected to exceed the direct transaction amounts reflected above due to operational disruption, lost revenue, and professional time devoted to the investigation. \n\nDemand for Remediation Accordingly, Make Cents Bookkeeping and XXXX XXXX, XXXX demands the following actions from XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX : Immediate reimbursement of unauthorized debits and related chargebacks. \n\nReimbursement of bank fees and costs incurred as a direct result of the unauthorized activity. \n\nWritten explanation of the security incident involving exposure of the merchant API key and the identity of the third-party vendor referenced in your XX/XX/XXXX correspondence. \n\nConfirmation that the merchant account has been permanently secured and that no further debits will occur. \n\nWritten confirmation that the merchant will not be held liable for fraudulent transactions resulting from the processors infrastructure or vendor environment. \n\nPreservation of Evidence You are hereby instructed to preserve all documents, communications, system logs, transaction records, audit logs, API credential records, vendor security reviews, and internal investigative materials related to this incident. \n\nThis preservation request includes communications involving XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, third-party vendors, and any internal security or fraud investigation teams. \n\nReservation of Rights Nothing in this letter constitutes a waiver of any rights or remedies available to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX. \n\nIf the matter can not be resolved promptly, the account holder reserves the right to pursue all available remedies including regulatory complaints, civil claims, and recovery of damages associated with the fraudulent activity and resulting operational harm. \n\nPlease provide a written response within XXXX ( XXXX ) days of receipt of this letter. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX  Registered XXXX | XXXX : XXXX On Fri, XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX wrote : XXXX XXXX Managing XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX  Registered XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX On Fri, XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX wrote : Thank you, I will do that. Especially because you have the nerve TO PUT XXXX XXXX DOLLARS THAT I NEVER GOT ON MY XXXX AS IF THE MONEY THAT WAS TAKEN OUT WAS NOT TAKEN OUT XXXX XXXX Managing Member XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX  Registered XXXX | XXXX : XXXX On Thu, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX wrote : Hello, I understand you will be seeking legal consult. Please send all further communication to XXXX. \n\nXXXX XXXX, XXXX Risk XXXX XXXX  : A XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX work from home # XXXX XXXX Customer Service : XXXX XXXX Customer Service : XXXX XXXX Customer Service : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX # logos From : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Sent : Wednesday, XX/XX/XXXX XXXX PM To : XXXX XXXX XXXX Subject : Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX // XXXX image.png Hello XXXX, Thank XXXX for your response. However, your message does not resolve the core issues that have been repeatedly raised, nor does it account for the ongoing and significant financial harm your companys actions have caused to my business and personal livelihood. \n\nAs of today, my business account remains negative in the amount of approximately {$390.00}, as reflected in the attached account screenshot. This negative balance is not the result of any dereliction of duty on my part. It is the direct result of XXXX XXXX  failure to properly secure, monitor, and respond to fraudulent activity on the payment terminal associated with my account. \n\nYour companys negligence in safeguarding merchant credentials, monitoring suspicious activity, and timely resolving the resulting chargebacks has caused measurable financial damage to my business. Despite my repeated communications, requests for clarification, and attempts to resolve this matter in good faith, there has been no meaningful movement toward a full and proper resolution. \n\nYou have stated that : {$3600.00} is being applied to XXXX rejects resulting from fraud-related chargebacks No further transactions can occur due to terminal deactivation A formal meeting is not required However, this does not address the fact that : XXXX. My account remains in a negative balance due to XXXX  operational failures. \n\nXXXX. The ACH rejections were the result of fraudulent activity, not merchant misuse or misconduct. \n\nXXXX. My original requests for clear resolution, proper reimbursement, and accountability were ignored for an extended period. \n\nXXXX. Your companys internal handling of this matter has placed the financial burden of fraud on my business. \n\nAt every stage of this process, XXXX XXXX has focused primarily on protecting its own financial position rather than addressing the full scope of harm caused to my business and household. The emphasis has consistently been on how your company would reconcile the issue internally, rather than how I would be made whole for the losses, disruption, and operational impact caused by your negligence. \n\nThe financial impact of this situation has been severe. All of my personal funds have been depleted as a direct result of this matter. I am currently unable to afford even basic necessities, including essential groceries such as milk. This hardship is not the result of mismanagement on my part it is the result of unresolved fraud, improper account handling, and delayed remediation by your company. \n\nAdditionally, the continued negative balance on my account has created further operational harm. My financial institution has informed me that I can not fully utilize my new business account until this matter is resolved, meaning your companys failure to correct this issue is actively restricting my ability to conduct business and stabilize my finances. \n\nFor the record : I responded promptly to your initial request for a meeting. \nNo response was provided to my follow-up communications. \nA sales representative later contacted me with inconsistent information. \nNo credit or adjustment was posted when promised. \nMy account remains negative as a direct result of XXXX actions. \n\nAt this point, I have retained legal counsel. All further communications will be reviewed accordingly. \n\nPlease consider this email formal notice that I will be proceeding with regulatory filings and documentation with the following agencies : Federal Trade Commission ( FTC XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX  Attorney General XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) Applicable payment network and compliance oversight entities In addition to my own experience, there are numerous publicly available complaints and reviews describing fraud-related activity, unauthorized charges, account misuse, delayed responses, and unresolved disputes involving your company. These reports raise serious concerns about internal controls, monitoring systems, and response procedures related to fraudulent activity and merchant account protection. \n\nWhile I am not asserting wrongdoing beyond my own documented experience, the consistency of these reports suggests a need for closer regulatory and legal scrutiny regarding how fraud is detected, managed, and remedied across your organization. \n\nI am requesting, one final time, written confirmation of : 1. When my account will be restored to a non-negative balance, which should have already been completed. \n\n2. That no additional debits or fees will occur.\n\n3. That all fraud-related financial impacts will be fully reconciled in my account, not merely accounted for internally by your company.\n\n4. A final accounting of all charges, credits, and ACH activity.\n\n5. A formal written report emailed to me by this time tomorrow.\n\nIf this matter is not fully resolved, including both financial correction and accountability, it will proceed through formal legal and regulatory channels. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX  Registered XXXX | XXXX : XXXX On Wed, XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX wrote : I will have my lawyer get in touch soon. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX Registered XXXX | XXXX : XXXX On Wed, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX wrote : Hello, Please see response to your questions : The exact amount being refunded or credited - {$3600.00} The date the adjustment will be posted - As previously mentioned, there are ACH rejects on the account from the fraud sales that did chargeback so these funds will be used to cover those rejects. \n\nConfirmation that no additional charges will occur - The terminal that the fraud activity occurred on was deactivated so no further transactions can go through. \n\nWhether a formal meeting is still required - I do not believe a formal meeting is needed. \n\n\n\nXXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : A XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX work from home # XXXX XXXX Customer Service : XXXX XXXX Customer Service : XXXX XXXX Customer Service : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX # logos From : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Sent : Wednesday, XX/XX/XXXX XXXX PM To : XXXX XXXX XXXX Subject : Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  // XXXX Hello XXXX, I am following up again regarding this matter. \n\nAfter your initial email requesting that I schedule a meeting, I responded promptly. Since that time, there has been absolutely no movement on the resolution I requested, and my follow-up communications have gone unanswered. \n\nInstead, I received a call from XXXX stating the amount would be reduced to {$390.00}. However, as of today, no adjustment or credit has been posted to my account. \n\nAt this point, all of my prior requests for clarification and resolution have been ignored, and this process has gone well beyond what I originally asked for. \n\nPlease provide a written update immediately addressing the following : The exact amount being refunded or credited The date the adjustment will be posted Confirmation that no additional charges will occur Whether a formal meeting is still required If I do not receive a timely response, I will proceed with formal escalation and documentation through regulatory and legal channels. \n\nThank you, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX  Registered XXXX | XXXX : XXXX On Sat, XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX wrote : Dear XXXX XXXX, Thank you for your continued correspondence regarding the fraudulent activity on my XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX account XXXX \n\nI am writing to formally document the facts, preserve my legal rights, and demand immediate, complete, and lawful remediation for the financial, operational, and reputational harm caused by this incident. \n\nHere are some key facts for the record ) My business, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, does not have any online payment portal, checkout system, or API integration accessible through my website or public platforms. \nI did not provide terminal credentials or API keys to any third party. \nMy bank, Atlantic Union Bank, has confirmed that the compromise did not originate from their systems. \nXXXX / XXXX Payments creates, issues, manages, stores, and controls all API keys associated with merchant accounts. Atlantic Union Bank and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  do not. \nYou have stated in writing that this fraud resulted from exposure of an API key through a third-party technology vendor servicing merchant accounts. \nI do not have any relationships with third-party vendors. My only financial service providers are XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Atlantic Union Bank. \nA qualified computer and cybersecurity professional has reviewed my systems and confirmed that the breach did not originate from any of my devices, email accounts, website, or internal systems. \nI entrusted XXXX / XXXX Payments with my businesss financial operations, payment processing, and transactional security. That trust was a material and reasonable part of our business relationship. The exposure of API credentials through a vendor operating under your platforms control represents a breach of that trust, a failure to safeguard my businesss financial infrastructure, and a deviation from reasonable commercial security standards. \n\nAs a direct and foreseeable result of this incident, my business incurred multiple overdraft and NSF fees, experienced operational disruption, risk to my tax software integrations, delayed client payments, administrative burden, and reputational harm within my community as a professional financial services provider. \n\nImportantly, my business has only recently opened and is just beginning to gain significant client traction and a good reputation with the community. This incident interfered with my ability to serve new clients, process payments, and establish trust during a critical early growth phase. \n\nThe goodwill credit offered does NOT adequately compensate for the financial and operational losses, my time investment and administrative burden ( s ), the companys reputational damage, business growth interference and loss of goodwill and client confidence in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX. \n\nUnder established commercial and tort law principles, business interruption, reputational harm, and loss of goodwill are recognized as categories of recoverable damages when a service providers security failure foreseeably harms a business. \n\nAs a direct result of this incident, I have spent a substantial number of professional hours addressing unauthorized transactions, communicating with your organization, coordinating with my bank, consulting technical experts, securing my systems, and mitigating harm to my business operations. During this time, I was unable to fully serve my clients or focus on revenue-generating work. \n\nAccordingly, I will be issuing a formal invoice for the reasonable value of my professional time, administrative burden, and business interruption caused by this incident. These costs are separate from, and in addition to, any goodwill credit offered and are recoverable as consequential damages under principles of negligence, breach of duty, and business interruption. \n\nFurther, while I have cooperated with your internal investigation process in good faith, I am not legally bound by your internal determinations, policies, or discretionary procedures. Any resolution to this matter must be based on applicable law, not solely on internal company findings or unilateral decisions. \n\nI reserve the right to reject any determination that does not fully and fairly compensate my business for the totality of the harm suffered. \n\nIt is not reasonable, appropriate, or legally justified to expect my small business to absorb any portion of the harm caused by a security failure that did not originate from my systems, credentials, website, or bank. \n\nUnder principles of negligence, breach of duty, and reasonable reliance, a service provider that undertakes to secure sensitive financial access must exercise appropriate care. When that duty is breached and damages result, the responsible party must bear the cost of remediation. \n\nAccordingly : I expect the full goodwill credit to be issued to my account within XXXX ( XXXX ) business day without reduction. \nI expect XXXX / XXXX XXXX  to absorb all additional costs associated with this incident, including all bank and NSF fees, chargeback-related losses, administrative and recovery costs, business interruption ( s ), and reputational harm Given the scope of the harm, the disruption to my early-stage business, and the breach of trust involved, the goodwill credit should be increased, not reduced. \nI therefore, demand that you provide the total amount of the original goodwill credit and provide confirmation that it will be issued in full, a breakdown of any chargebacks and why they are being charged back to me with laws that justify this action, written confirmation that no further debits will occur, and lastly, confirmation that all additional costs will be absorbed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nThe damage to my professional reputation within the local business community is having a measurable impact on client trust and business growth. \n\nAs part of full remediation, and consistent with recognized remedies for loss of goodwill and reputational injury, I am requesting that XXXX / XXXX Payments fund a local marketing and reputation-restoration campaign to help rebuild confidence in my business, including : XXXX. Local digital advertising XXXX. Community-based marketing XXXX. Client communication support XXXX. Brand reputation restoration efforts Because this incident involved unauthorized access associated with my merchant account credentials, and because exposure to such credentials creates an ongoing risk of misuse, I am requesting : Business identity-theft protection services for my company, including monitoring for fraudulent use of my business name and financial information. \nXXXX of any reasonable costs associated with protecting, repairing, or restoring my business identity. \nIf reputational or security concerns require a business name change, coverage of the associated legal, administrative, branding, and filing costs. \nThese measures are consistent with reasonable mitigation and remediation obligations following a credential-related security failure. \n\nUnder XXXX and XXXX  law, payment processors have a legal duty to protect merchant accounts, credentials, and transaction systems, and to handle unauthorized activity fairly, transparently, and responsibly. \n\nXXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX ( UDAP Va. Code 59.1-196 et seq. ) : XXXX law prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in connection with consumer and business services. \n\nThis includes misrepresenting security protection, failing to disclose material risks, or shifting responsibility to customers for internal or vendor-related security failures. \n\nBusinesses harmed by such practices may seek damages, attorney fees, and other statutory remedies. \n\nUniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) Articles 3 & 4 : Merchants are not responsible for unauthorized transactions they did not approve. \n\nIn this case, I did not authorize the transactions, did not provide access credentials, and did not operate any online payment system through which such access could have occurred. \n\nhttps : XXXX and https : XXXX Federal Trade Commission XXXX : Companies may not misrepresent security protections or unfairly shift responsibility to customers when failures o","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-10T22:21:47.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"229XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20145800","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Atlantic Union Bankshares, Inc.","date_received":"2026-03-10T22:07:18.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Can't stop withdrawals from your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Brand reputation restoration efforts Because this incident involved unauthorized access associated with my merchant account credentials, and because exposure to such credentials creates an ongoing <em>risk</em> of misuse, I am requesting : Business identity-theft protection services for my company, <em>including</em> monitoring for fraudulent use of my business name and financial information. \nXXXX of any reasonable costs associated with protecting, repairing, or restoring my business identity."]},"sort":[7.192263,"20145800"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3284939","_score":7.1702795,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"During the housing crisis, my home loan was originated by XXXX/XXXX and was a subprime loan as well as predatory. This bank engaged in mortgage origination, servicing and foreclosure abuses upon me. Numerous violations of the laws have been committed against me by XXXX/XXXX  in relation to this loan ( to name a few, not all inclusive ) : Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violations, predatory lending, TILA violations, valuation fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud, fraud inducement, and RESPA violations. My loan has a 10.69 % interest rate, when I qualified for a commercial loan ( s ) ; valuation fraud ( as the loan officer told me that they could not use my appraisal which I had completed less than 45 days earlier, the loan officer said we have to use our guy, upon their guy submitting his appraisal, my home value had increased by {$40000.00} ) ; the loan officer informed me that in order to qualify for my loan, I had to purchase XXXX/XXXX life insurance policy because I was a single male, with no kids or, wife and XXXX XXXX ( which I did purchase ) ; I was forwarded solicitations for loan refinancing and low rates by mail from XXXX/XXXX  which was why I met with them at their offices ; and the loan was a negative amortization loan. I was subjected to foreclosure abuses during the period of XX/XX/XXXX to present and have not received any relief in spite of the numerous settlement agreements by XXXX/XXXX with federal and state agencies as a result of the loans they originated. \nMy home is presently valued by SPSs appraiser ( XX/XX/XXXX ) at {$150000.00} and SPS states that I owe {$500000.00} for the payoff/principal amount. ( SPS obtained my loan from XXXX XXXX XXXX, who obtained my loan from the loan originator XXXX/XXXX  ). \nIn spite of me originally/allegedly having a loan for {$270000.00} from XXXX/XXXX on an artificially inflated property value ( as the home was only worth {$75000.00} ) ; the only transactions have been my loan being transferred/sold numerous times to other companies ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  and SPS ) and now I allegedly owe an additional {$220000.00}, from unknown excessive fees, and other unknown reasons. \nIn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX/XXXX agreed to settle charges of abusive and negligent foreclosure practices dating back to XX/XX/XXXX. They agreed to commit {$26.00} XXXX ( along with 4 other predatory banks ) to help underwater homeowners and compensate those who lost their homes due to illegal and improper foreclosure practices. In spite of this agreement, I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY MANDATED RELIEF FOR THIS UNDERWATER HOME IN WHICH I PRESENTLY RESIDE. \nAdditionally, on or around XX/XX/XXXX, as part of an enforcement action by federal authorities and predicated upon XXXX/XXXX abuses the OCC and Federal Reserve laid out the framework in which borrowers would receive compensation for a wide range of foreclosure abuses and errors. \nINSTEAD OF XXXX/XXXX COMPLYING WITH THEIR CONSUMER RELIEF OBLIGATIONS, AND TO AVOID DOING SO ; XXXX/XXXX by and through deceptive and elaborate schemes and/or fraudulent actions sold/transferred my predatory loan to XXXX XXXX XXXX  to avoid providing the relief in which Im legally and lawfully entitled to receive and have not. \nAs a result of XXXX/XXXX failing to comply with these numerous legal settlements and avoid providing me the relief to which Im entitled ; they transferred/sold my loan to XXXX XXXX XXXX ( who chose to ignore that my loan was originated with XXXX/XXXX ). \nDue to the housing crisis, and XXXX/XXXX  failing to provide any relief to me for their illegal actions ( in which Im legally entitled ) and to avoid foreclosure, I requested a modification from XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( who got my loan from XXXX/XXXX ( my loan originator ) ) failed to provide any creditable and meaningful foreclosure relief. Instead of XXXX XXXX XXXX  providing me the relief to which Im entitled from XXXX/XXXX ( as they originated my loan as well as participated in illegal foreclosure actions upon me ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX choose to IGNORE THE FACT THAT MY LOAN ORIGINATED WITH XXXX/XXXX in order to avoid providing me relief. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX approved my request for a modification. They charged me {$9200.00} as a good faith payment ( in spite of me receiving no relief from XXXX illegal actions upon me and numerous settlements in which Im entitled to receive relief and still have not received ). \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX  approved a Modification Agreement Limited Term Interest Only ( Five Year Limited Term Interest Only ). This agreement consisted of numerous excessive fees, interest and other unexplained charges and questionable principal. XXXX XXXX XXXX CHOSE TO IGNORE THAT MY LOAN WAS WITH XXXX/XXXX   AND FAILED TO PROVIDE ME THE RELIEF IN WHICH IM ENTITLED TO AS A RESULT OF ALL OF XXXX/XXXX   SETTLEMENTS. \nThis modification from XXXX XXXX XXXX only steered me ( a struggling homeowner ) into a risky modification ( in spite of me receiving no relief from XXXX/XXXX illegal actions upon me and numerous settlements in which Im entitled to receive relief and still have not ), by offering interest-only loans instead of permanent modifications. Instead of modifying my mortgage into a stable affordable permanent modification, XXXX modified my loan into an unaffordable loan modification with ballooning monthly payments I can not afford. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX failed to make a good faith effort to avoid foreclosure for borrowers whose mortgage loans have unfair subprime terms. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX  appeared to favor short-term, interest-only mortgage modifications rather than permanent ones, even when a permanent modification was commercially reasonable. Then when the initial term of the mortgage expired, myself and borrowers would see mortgage payments balloon to an amount even higher than what I originally was paying and could not afford, setting me up to continue to face foreclosure. \nIn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX entered into a settlement which reflects a continuation of enforcement actions by the department and its federal and state enforcement partners to hold financial institutions accountable for abusive mortgage practices. The settlement parallels the {$25.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) reached in XX/XX/XXXX between the federal government, 49 state attorneys general and the District of Columbias attorney general and the five largest national mortgage servicers, as well as the {$960.00} XXXX settlement reached in XX/XX/XXXX between those same federal and state partners and XXXX XXXX  XXXX. This settlement with XXXX is the result of negotiations that, as has been reported in XXXX XXXX plcs Annual Report and Accounts, began following the announcement of the XXXX. \nUnder the agreement announced today, XXXX  has agreed to provide more than {$470.00} XXXX in relief to consumers and payments to federal and state parties, and to be bound to mortgage servicing standards and be subject to independent monitoring of its compliance with the agreement. More specifically, the settlement provides that : XXXX  will pay {$100.00} XXXX : {$40.00} XXXX to be paid to the settling federal parties ; {$59.00} XXXX to be paid into an escrow fund administered by the states to make payments to borrowers who lost their homes to foreclosure between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ; and {$200000.00} to be paid into an escrow fund to reimburse the state attorneys general for investigation costs. \nBy XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX will complete {$370.00} XXXX in creditable consumer relief directly to borrowers and homeowners in the form of reducing the principal on mortgages for borrowers who are at risk of default, reducing mortgage interest rates, forgiving forbearance and other forms of relief. The relief to homeowners has been underway and will likely provide more than {$370.00} XXXX in direct benefits to borrowers because XXXX will not be permitted to claim credit for every dollar spent on the required consumer relief. \nXXXX will be required to implement standards for the servicing of mortgage loans, the handling of foreclosures and for ensuring the accuracy of information provided in federal bankruptcy court. These standards are designed to prevent foreclosure abuses of the past, such as robo-signing, improper documentation and lost paperwork, and create new consumer protections. The standards provide for oversight of foreclosure processing, including third-party vendors, and new requirements to undertake pre-filing reviews of certain documents filed in bankruptcy court. The servicing standards ensure that foreclosure is a last resort by requiring XXXX to evaluate homeowners for other loss-mitigation options first. In addition, the standards restrict XXXX from foreclosing while the homeowner is being considered for a loan modification. \nIn addition to the above, and predicated upon the banks mortgage abuses XXXX/XXXX reached an agreement with federal agencies to address its mortgage origination, servicing and foreclosure abuses in the amount of {$470.00} XXXX and to provide {$370.00} XXXX in creditable consumer relief to benefit homeowners across the country and to reform their servicing standards. General Counsel XXXX XXXX of HUD stated : Mortgage servicers have a responsibility to help struggling borrowers remain in their home, not to push them into foreclosure. This agreement is another example of how multiple agencies in the federal government and state attorney general across the country are working to make sure the mortgage industry treats consumers fairly. This agreement not only provides relief to borrowers affected by XXXX  past practices, it puts in place protections for current and future homeowners through tough mortgage servicing standards. They were mandated to help prevent past foreclosure abuses. This settlement agreement was entered into ( XX/XX/XXXX ) for {$600.00} XXXX with a series of federal agencies by the DOJ, HUD, CFPB and 49 states and the District of Columbia for XXXX/XXXX  engaging in these abusive mortgage practices. ***IN SPITE OF THIS SETTLEMENT, AS OF THIS INSTANT DATE, I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY MORTGAGE RELIEF WHATSOEVER IN SPITE OF MY LOAN ORIGINATING WITH XXXX/XXXX  AND BEING TRANSFERRED/SOLD NUMEROUS TIMES TO AVOID PROVIDING THE RELIEF IN WHICH IM LEGALLY ENTITLED AND HAVE NOT RECEIVED*** I HAVE NOT WAIVED ANY OF MY RIGHTS TO THE RELIEF IN WHICH IM ENTITLED AND HAVE NOT RECEIVED. \nIn spite of all of these numerous settlement agreements by XXXXXXXX, I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RELIEF TO WHICH IM ENTITLED. \nIn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX  reached an agreement on these types of false modifications they entered into with struggling homeowners ( I HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN ANY RELIEF FOR THESE ILLEGAL ACTIONS UPON ME ). XXXX XXXX XXXX  was required to put a new loan modification program in place and review borrowers who currently have interest-only or short-term modifications to provide them more sustainable, affordable modifications. My interest-only fraudulent modification expires in XX/XX/XXXX. \nI HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RELIEF FROM XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT XXXX/XXXX IS MY LOAN ORIGINATOR ). INSTEAD, MY LOAN WAS TRANSFERRED TO SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING ( SPS ). \nI HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY OF THE RELIEF TO WHICH IM ENTITLED FROM XXXX/XXXX  ( MY LOAN ORIGINATOR ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( OBTAINED MY LOAN FROM TRANSFER/SELL FROM XXXX/XXXX ( MY LOAN ORIGINATOR ) ; AND/OR SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING ( WHO OBTAINED MY LOAN FROM XXXX XXXX XXXX FROM TRANSFER/SELL ( IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT XXXX/XXXX IS MY LOAN ORIGINATOR ).","date_sent_to_company":"2019-06-24T17:09:47.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Other type of mortgage","zip_code":"33147","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3284939","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","date_received":"2019-06-24T15:54:14.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The standards provide for oversight of foreclosure processing, <em>including</em> third-party vendors, and new requirements to undertake pre-filing reviews of certain documents filed in bankruptcy court. The servicing standards ensure that foreclosure is a last resort by requiring XXXX to evaluate homeowners for other loss-<em>mitigation</em> options first. In addition, the standards restrict XXXX from foreclosing while the homeowner is being considered for a loan modification."]},"sort":[7.1702795,"3284939"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2630886","_score":5.4938297,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Dear Sir/Madam, I have concluded an extensive investigation and analysis of various documents associated with my Loan and the purported transfers and assignments thereof. These documents include : the Trust Deed, Note, and relevant foreclosure documents. I have determined there was apparent fraud involved with respect to several parties involved in invalid transfers/assignments of the Deed of Trust and Note relating to the above-mentioned property address. The invalid and fraudulent conveyance of rights, title and interest created lack of authority to transfer, substitute, or convey rights, title and interest of our Client 's property rights in relation to Deed of Trust, dated XX/XX/XXXX and recorded XX/XX/XXXX. As an additional matter, I am alarmed with the manner in which I have been treated by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 's representatives and single point of contact XXXX XXXX. XXXX 's representatives and XXXX single point of contact XXXX XXXX have made blatant misrepresentations_never return call, incorrectly imposed a late fee, causing me serious damages, including the potential foreclosure of my home. XXXX Lost Mitigation XXXX ID XXXX confirm on XX/XX/XXXX in the amount of {$15000.00} _ included {$14000.00} from the previous servicer/Trustee ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), Corporate advance $ XXXX_included {$4300.00} again from the previous servicer ( XXXX/ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) . Attached please find the Reinstatement quote from ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). I requested XXXX breakdown all their Fee/Late Charge/Payment and they never did. XXXX single point of contact ( SPOC ) XXXX XXXX is completely unprofessional. Her customer service is non existent, she 's sleeping, she does n't know what 's going on with your file. I did request a reinstatement from XX/XX/XXXX until now XXXX never send it to me. Every time my representative ( XXXX ) call and request them to send me the reinstatement quote they refer me back to the sleeping, not working SPOC XXXX XXXX, until now almost a month, they continue process foreclosure on my property but I still did not receive the reinstatement quote as I requested. This loan has been reinstated on XX/XX/XXXX. Reinstating my loan means I pay the entire amount I 'm behind ( arrears ) plus all related fees ( such as interest and late fees ) to bring my loan current. After I reinstate, my loan did appear as paid to date in the lenders records and I will resume making my original mortgage payments. That 's what I know and I was back to my regular payment until the loan transfer to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I need your explaination in detail with all evidence/documents that you have the right to increase my monthly payment from {$2900.00} to {$11000.00}. The above-mentioned violations subject you to sanctions and nullification of the loan and the substantial nature of this claim may exceed the policy limits on any and all insurance policies issued that cover these types of risks. There are many legal issues here ; ( 1 ) Here, there is a lack of clarity as to the identity of the real party in interest with the power to foreclose. I contend that through their own actions, none of the parties involved actually continued to hold valid standing to foreclose when the foreclosure occurred. From the recorded documents I have retrieved it appears that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was the original investor as of XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit \" A '' ). However, the Notice XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to Sell under Deed of Trust ( Exhibit \" B '' ) states that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was the Investor listed. Then on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was apparently assigned the Deed of Trust by XXXX ( Exhibit \" C '' ). Then a Notice of Trustee Sale, dated XX/XX/XXXX and recorded XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit \" E '' ) was filed under the name of either XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as the only reference to the investor listed was the details of the original Deed of Trust 's recording information, or the apparently newly assigned investor, XXXX XXXX XXXX. Finally, the Assignment of Deed of Trust, dated XX/XX/XXXX and recorded XX/XX/XXXX( Exhibit \" F '' ) shows XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as the new assignee of the Deed of Trust, DatedXX/XX/XXXX & recorded XX/XX/XXXX. In preparation for a foreclosure my property XXXX recorded a Corrective Assignment of Deed of Trust and Substitution of Trustee.I believe that, you whoever you are may have used interstate communications to tried to defraud are extort money from me, making a claim were no claim exists, which may be a violation under RICO and also the FDCPA. DEMAND FOR ALL 40 QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Every question in whole or in part must be answered completely, in detail And every question in whole or part must be Notarized and Certified by the person ( s ), agent ( s ) answering these 40 questions in whole or part below. 1 ) Please state your complete name ( s ), occupation ( s ) and mailing address ( s ). 2 ) Identify the source of the funds in the account that is the subject matter of this 3 ) Produce all original records, reports, memoranda relating to the source of funds relating to this disputed account and list all other sources of information such as computer file names, the database and locations at which related information is located and accessible. All Records, Reports must be Notarized and Certified that they are originals 4 ) Who was and is the owner/holder/ Investor of each account from XX/XX/XXXX? The current XXXX account is XXXX, their name and address, list those individuals having signature rights to each account, their name ( s ), title ( s ) if any and address ( s ). 5 ) Identify the account that was debited when the disputed account was created, by name, or account number, location, address. 6 ) Did the funds for the disputed account originate from another account or lending institution? Name of account or lending institutions name and address 7 ) List the names and addresses of all lending institutions from which the alleged funds were purported. 8 ) Please identify the account number from which the funds originated in order to create the disputed account, location, address. 9 ) Admit that no other account was debited when the disputed account was created must be notarized and certified 10 ) If you denied that no other account was debited when the disputed account was opened or created, please identify the account that was debited by the account number and the name or names of the debited accounts signer, holder and/or owner, and explain in detail how the funds for this account were originated, must be notarized and certified. 11 ) If you denied that no other account was debited when this disputed account was opened or created, state the total balance of this debited at the time the debit was made and, list the names, occupations and addresses of the signers and holders on the account and the date that the account was opened along with the opening balance. 12 ) Please produce all original documents and information, related in any way to your implication or allegation that a loan was given to me, notarized and certified. 13 ) Which employee of the bank authorized the transaction? name and title 14 ) If any loan origination system, software or other procedures were used in the opening of the disputed account, please identify the system by name, its address and describe in detail how it operates. 15 ) According to the alleged loan agreement, was the purported lender or financial institution involved in the alleged loan to use their money as adequate consideration to the promissory note from the alleged borrower? YES or NO. 16 ) According to the alleged loan agreement, was the purported lender or financial institution involved in the alleged loan to accept anything of value from the alleged borrower that would be used to fund a check or similar instrument in approximately the amount of the alleged loan? YES or NO. 17 ) According to the accounting/ bookkeeping entries, did the purported lender or financial institution involved in the alleged loan to accept anything of value from the alleged borrower that would be used to fund a check or similar instrument in approximately the amount of the alleged loan? YES or NO. 18 ) Was the intent of the purported loan agreement that the party that funded the loan should be repaid the money lent? YES or NO. 19 ) Did the purported lender involved in the alleged loan follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, GAAP? YES or NO. 20 ) Were all material facts disclosed in the witted agreement? YES or NO. 21 ) What is the name and address of any bank auditor or certified public accountant involved with or having any relation to the accounting function regarding this disputed account? 22 ) Identify the name and address of the records or accounting records or ledgers reflecting the transaction for the disputed account. 23 ) Were any other loan numbers assigned to the disputed account? 24 ) If you answered yes to the above question, please list those account numbers with date of assignment, must be notarized and certified. 25 ) Explain in exact detail how each account was created or originated. 26 ) Explain in detail how the funds for each account were deposited and where they originated, must be notarized and certified. 27 ) Was an account created with the purported loan amount then debited account? 28 ) Please explain your answer in exact detail to the above question # 27. 29 ) Please produce all records and tangible evidence relating to the questions herein and send them along with your response, must be by certified mail. 30 ) Are you or any of your agents, agencies bonded for your actions? 31 ) If so please send NOTARIZED, CERTIFIED COPY OF YOUR, THEIR BOND 32 ) Have your or any of your agencies ever taken an Oath? Notarized, Certified 33 ) If so please attach NOTARIZED, CERTIFIED COPY OF YOUR, THEIR OATH 34 ) Do you or any of your agents, agencies have Qualifications for your, their position? 35 ) If so please attach NOTARIZED, CERTIFIED COPY OF ALL QUALIFICATIONS 36 ) Was this alleged debt ever written off, charged off, charged against, on taxes or other lending institutions, credit reporting agencies, etc?, IF YES, Then list the names and addresses of all involved or related to this alleged debt, each must be notarized and certified. 37a ) Please identify what type of money supply was used for the extension of credit, loan supplied by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX c/o XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX And /also what was the type of money supplied ( M1 ), ( M2 ) or ( M3 ) type money in this alleged account? Must be Notarized and Certified. 37 ) Please identify if the security on this alleged account is a type I, type II, type III, type IV, or type V securities. Must be Notarized and Certified. 38 ) Please identify if at any time the security on this alleged account was converted into any stock option, IF YES, NAME OF STOCK, Must be Notarized and Certified. 39 ) Please provide a currency trace as it applies to the alleged loan or extension of credit. Each and every part of the trace must be Notarized and Certified by the person ( s ) Verifying the accuracy of the trace. 40 ) Please provide any and all documentation filed with the FDIC, SEC, OCC, and the Federal Reserve and any other regulating agency on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX c/o XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2017-08-16T14:12:53.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"95148","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2630886","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Law Offices of Les Zieve","date_received":"2017-08-16T14:04:05.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX 's representatives and XXXX single point of contact XXXX XXXX have made blatant misrepresentations_never return call, incorrectly imposed a late fee, causing me serious damages, <em>including</em> the potential foreclosure of my home."]},"sort":[5.4938297,"2630886"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2630961","_score":5.4834504,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Dear Sir/Madam, I have concluded an extensive investigation and analysis of various documents associated with my Loan and the purported transfers and assignments thereof. These documents include : the Trust Deed, Note, and relevant foreclosure documents. I have determined there was apparent fraud involved with respect to several parties involved in invalid transfers/assignments of the Deed of Trust and Note relating to the above-mentioned property address. The invalid and fraudulent conveyance of rights, title and interest created lack of authority to transfer, substitute, or convey rights, title and interest of our Client 's property rights in relation to Deed of Trust, dated XX/XX/XXXX and recorded XX/XX/XXXX. As an additional matter, I am alarmed with the manner in which I have been treated by Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC 's representatives and single point of contact XXXX XXXX. Rushmore 's representatives and Rushmore single point of contact XXXX XXXX have made blatant misrepresentations_never return call, incorrectly imposed a late fee, causing me serious damages, including the potential foreclosure of my home. Rushmore Lost Mitigation XXXX ID XXXX confirm on XX/XX/XXXX in the amount of {$15000.00} _ included {$14000.00} from the previous servicer/Trustee ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), Corporate advance $ XXXX_included {$4300.00} again from the previous servicer ( XXXX/ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) . Attached please find the Reinstatement quote from ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). I requested Rushmore breakdown all their Fee/Late Charge/Payment and they never did. Rushmore single point of contact ( SPOC ) XXXX XXXX is completely unprofessional. Her customer service is non existent, she 's sleeping, she does n't know what 's going on with your file. I did request a reinstatement from XX/XX/XXXX until now XXXX never send it to me. Every time my representative ( XXXX ) call and request them to send me the reinstatement quote they refer me back to the sleeping, not working SPOC XXXX XXXX, until now almost a month, they continue process foreclosure on my property but I still did not receive the reinstatement quote as I requested. This loan has been reinstated on XX/XX/XXXX. Reinstating my loan means I pay the entire amount I 'm behind ( arrears ) plus all related fees ( such as interest and late fees ) to bring my loan current. After I reinstate, my loan did appear as paid to date in the lenders records and I will resume making my original mortgage payments. That 's what I know and I was back to my regular payment until the loan transfer to Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC. I need your explaination in detail with all evidence/documents that you have the right to increase my monthly payment from {$2900.00} to {$11000.00}.\nThe above-mentioned violations subject you to sanctions and nullification of the loan and the substantial nature of this claim may exceed the policy limits on any and all insurance policies issued that cover these types of risks. There are many legal issues here ; ( 1 ) Here, there is a lack of clarity as to the identity of the real party in interest with the power to foreclose. I contend that through their own actions, none of the parties involved actually continued to hold valid standing to foreclose when the foreclosure occurred. From the recorded documents I have retrieved it appears that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was the original investor as of XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit \" A '' ). However, the Notice of Default & Election to Sell under Deed of Trust ( Exhibit \" B '' ) states that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was the Investor listed. Then onXX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was apparently assigned the Deed of Trust by XXXX ( Exhibit \" C '' ). Then a Notice of Trustee Sale, dated XX/XX/XXXX and recorded XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit \" E '' ) was filed under the name of either XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as the only reference to the investor listed was the details of the original Deed of Trust 's recording information, or the apparently newly assigned investor, XXXX XXXX XXXX. Finally, the Assignment of Deed of Trust, dated XX/XX/XXXX and recorded XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit \" F '' ) shows XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as the new assignee of the Deed of Trust, Dated XX/XX/XXXX & recorded XX/XX/XXXX. In preparation for a foreclosure my property Rushmore recorded a Corrective Assignment of Deed of Trust and Substitution of Trustee.I believe that, you whoever you are may have used interstate communications to tried to defraud are extort money from me, making a claim were no claim exists, which may be a violation under RICO and also the FDCPA.\nDEMAND FOR ALL 40 QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Every question in whole or in part must be answered completely, in detail And every question in whole or part must be Notarized and Certified by the person ( s ), agent ( s ) answering these 40 questions in whole or part below.\n1 ) Please state your complete name ( s ), occupation ( s ) and mailing address ( s ). 2 ) Identify the source of the funds in the account that is the subject matter of this 3 ) Produce all original records, reports, memoranda relating to the source of funds relating to this disputed account and list all other sources of information such as computer file names, the database and locations at which related information is located and accessible. All Records, Reports must be Notarized and Certified that they are originals 4 ) Who was and is the owner/holder/ Investor of each account fromXX/XX/XXXX? The current Rushmore account is XXXX, their name and address, list those individuals having signature rights to each account, their name ( s ), title ( s ) if any and address ( s ). 5 ) Identify the account that was debited when the disputed account was created, by name, or account number, location, address. 6 ) Did the funds for the disputed account originate from another account or lending institution? Name of account or lending institutions name and address 7 ) List the names and addresses of all lending institutions from which the alleged funds were purported. 8 ) Please identify the account number from which the funds originated in order to create the disputed account, location, address. 9 ) Admit that no other account was debited when the disputed account was created must be notarized and certified 10 ) If you denied that no other account was debited when the disputed account was opened or created, please identify the account that was debited by the account number and the name or names of the debited accounts signer, holder and/or owner, and explain in detail how the funds for this account were originated, must be notarized and certified. 11 ) If you denied that no other account was debited when this disputed account was opened or created, state the total balance of this debited at the time the debit was made and, list the names, occupations and addresses of the signers and holders on the account and the date that the account was opened along with the opening balance. 12 ) Please produce all original documents and information, related in any way to your implication or allegation that a loan was given to me, notarized and certified. 13 ) Which employee of the bank authorized the transaction? name and title 14 ) If any loan origination system, software or other procedures were used in the opening of the disputed account, please identify the system by name, its address and describe in detail how it operates.\n15 ) According to the alleged loan agreement, was the purported lender or financial institution involved in the alleged loan to use their money as adequate consideration to the promissory note from the alleged borrower? YES or NO. 16 ) According to the alleged loan agreement, was the purported lender or financial institution involved in the alleged loan to accept anything of value from the alleged borrower that would be used to fund a check or similar instrument in approximately the amount of the alleged loan? YES or NO. 17 ) According to the accounting/ bookkeeping entries, did the purported lender or financial institution involved in the alleged loan to accept anything of value from the alleged borrower that would be used to fund a check or similar instrument in approximately the amount of the alleged loan? YES or NO. 18 ) Was the intent of the purported loan agreement that the party that funded the loan should be repaid the money lent? YES or NO. 19 ) Did the purported lender involved in the alleged loan follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, GAAP? YES or NO. 20 ) Were all material facts disclosed in the witted agreement? YES or NO. 21 ) What is the name and address of any bank auditor or certified public accountant involved with or having any relation to the accounting function regarding this disputed account? 22 ) Identify the name and address of the records or accounting records or ledgers reflecting the transaction for the disputed account. 23 ) Were any other loan numbers assigned to the disputed account? 24 ) If you answered yes to the above question, please list those account numbers with date of assignment, must be notarized and certified. 25 ) Explain in exact detail how each account was created or originated. 26 ) Explain in detail how the funds for each account were deposited and where they originated, must be notarized and certified. 27 ) Was an account created with the purported loan amount then debited account? 28 ) Please explain your answer in exact detail to the above question # 27. 29 ) Please produce all records and tangible evidence relating to the questions herein and send them along with your response, must be by certified mail. 30 ) Are you or any of your agents, agencies bonded for your actions? 31 ) If so please send NOTARIZED, CERTIFIED COPY OF YOUR, THEIR BOND 32 ) Have your or any of your agencies ever taken an Oath? Notarized, Certified 33 ) If so please attach NOTARIZED, CERTIFIED COPY OF YOUR, THEIR OATH 34 ) Do you or any of your agents, agencies have Qualifications for your, their position? 35 ) If so please attach NOTARIZED, CERTIFIED COPY OF ALL QUALIFICATIONS 36 ) Was this alleged debt ever written off, charged off, charged against, on taxes or other lending institutions, credit reporting agencies, etc?, IF YES, Then list the names and addresses of all involved or related to this alleged debt, each must be notarized and certified. 37a ) Please identify what type of money supply was used for the extension of credit, loan supplied by Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC c/o XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX And /also what was the type of money supplied ( M1 ), ( M2 ) or ( M3 ) type money in this alleged account? Must be Notarized and Certified. 37 ) Please identify if the security on this alleged account is a type I, type II, type III, type IV, or type V securities. Must be Notarized and Certified. 38 ) Please identify if at any time the security on this alleged account was converted into any stock option, IF YES, NAME OF STOCK, Must be Notarized and Certified. 39 ) Please provide a currency trace as it applies to the alleged loan or extension of credit. Each and every part of the trace must be Notarized and Certified by the person ( s ) Verifying the accuracy of the trace.\n40 ) Please provide any an\nd all documentation filed with the FDIC, SEC, OCC, and the Federal Reserve and any other regulating agency on Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC c/o XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2017-08-16T13:47:19.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"95148","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2630961","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC","date_received":"2017-08-16T11:48:28.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Rushmore 's representatives and Rushmore single point of contact XXXX XXXX have made blatant misrepresentations_never return call, incorrectly imposed a late fee, causing me serious damages, <em>including</em> the potential foreclosure of my home."]},"sort":[5.4834504,"2630961"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5657129","_score":5.3457537,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Subject of the complaint : A notice dated XX/XX/XXXX from Bank of America was mailed to XXXX XXXX stating that the interest rate of our mortgage loan that they own and service will increase by 0.750 % for 272 months and a final balloon payment of {$250000.00}. We adamantly state again that this mortgage loan modification issued by XXXX XXXX  XXXX in XXXX is fraudulent. The original loan was {$330000.00} and the loan modification exploded it to {$720000.00} which includes a balloon payment of {$210000.00} has a 44 yr. term with escalating interest rates. Additionally, without notifying us, Bank of America extended the loan term to 52 years. We state that the mortgage loan is fraudulent because of documented proof that it was derived from mortgage fraud consisting of unlawful financial policies, manipulated processing times, misrepresentation of information and illegal business practices. \nPurpose of the complaint : We are again appealing to Bank of America on legal, moral, ethical and humane grounds to stop perpetuating this mortgage crime and grave injustice done against the XXXX family. There is urgency to this complaint because Bank of America is about to implement the most formidable and financially damaging period of our mortgage loan. As a hard working family of XXXX descent with roots in XXXX and XXXX we are living in our home for the past 27 years. However we attribute this achievement and our survival from losing our home not only to our persistent tenacity to fight against the injustice done against us but primarily to our faith in the power of Almighty God. \nWe are aware that Bank of America has stated exemption from any blame of mortgage fraud related to the mortgage loan that they currently own and service on our home. Their basis for this claim is that it was not them, but XXXX XXXX XXXX that processed the terms and conditions of our loan. But to us their position is analogous to thieves laundering their stolen money in a bank that benefits from the profits and when confronted about the crime they claim innocence or ignorance. Similarly, the case with our home is analogous to a hard working, honest, individual who was criminally and purposefully setup for theft of {$720000.00} and was sentenced to 52 years of punishment for a crime they did not commit. \nOur perspective : We are among the thousands of US citizens, and particularly those of XXXX descent who were victimized by massive mortgage financial crimes committed in XXXX. Our current monthly payments continue to feed the greed of investors with dividends from our fraudulent mortgage loan that was encased in a toxic asset titled XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX for XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX Pass-Through Certificates, Series XXXX. The illegal business strategy all servicers applied to our loan over the 10-yr period was implemented on several levels. First was the abusive and premature action to begin the foreclosure process after only two missed payments and while we were making full monthly payments. Second was the persistent practice of ignoring phone calls and letters about our loan. Third, were the incessant requests by servicers for the exact documents that we had previously submitted. Fourth was the repeated submission of loan modification applications with no approval. Fifth was the practice of changing servicers who regularly demanded starting over the application process. However, the most pervasive strategy was the purposeful and unconscionable manipulation of processing time to extend it so that the excessive charges, missed payments and miscellaneous fees including monthly inspections of the property will accumulate to a financially insurmountable amount. The ultimate goal was for us lose our home. \nSynopsis of the complaint : All information is backed by documentation ) Prior to responding to a solicitation to refinance in XXXX, we had lived in our home for ten ( 10 ) years. The loan was originally made to XXXX XXXX and spouse XXXX XXXX in XXXX each with 50 % ownership certificates to XXXX XXXX. \nXXXX we refinanced for {$330000.00} at 10 % for 30 yrs. with XXXX XXXX XXXX. There were two closings. The loan was finally made to XXXX XXXX and son, XXXX XXXX. Interest rate was to be lowered if we paid the {$2500.00} on time for 6 months and we did. But also six months later the former owners sued the title company XXXX XXXX for issuing a fraudulent title deed with their forged signatures. Refer to court XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. We incurred {$25000.00} in legal fees to litigate clearing of the title. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX - Countrywide XXXX XXXX. Two periods of unemployment and legal costs caused us to miss two mortgage payments. XXXX XXXX resumed work in XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX soon also after. Payments resumed from XXXX. Our request to put the two payments at the end of the loan was repeatedly refused. \nXXXX Countrywide  returned mortgage payments made in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX stating that our home was in foreclosure proceedings. We sent the first letter requesting mortgage forbearance or any other applicable loan modification option. Countrywide  did not respond. \nXXXX we sent six letters to Countrywide  XXXX  XXXX requesting mortgage forbearance or any other applicable loan modification option. No response. \nXXXX The case involving title deed, lasted 3 yrs and was settled with the title cleared and plaintiffs receiving {$25000.00}. We requested an application from Countrywide  for the Home Affordable Mortgage Program offered by the Obama administration for which we more than qualified. Total income was {$82000.00} per yr. No response. We also contacted Senator XXXX for assistance. He responded but was not able to change conditions. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX Bank of America XXXX Countrywide  XXXX XXXX. The same problem of no response to our request for a HAMP loan modification application continued. Instead, they offered in-house loan modification programs for {$2800.00} to {$4000.00} monthly. We declined offers and continued to request application for HAMP program that was developed for home owners like us. \nXXXX - New servicer- a ) XXXX XXXX XXXX offered HAMP application but maintained the same business policy of repeatedly requesting the same documents with no loan approval. b ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX for XXXX Mortgage XXXX XXXX XXXX Pass-Through Certificates, Series XXXX filed a status report for foreclosure action against us. We responded XXXX XXXX requesting with stated reasons that the court dismiss the plaintiffs action with prejudice. The foreclosure case was placed on hold. \nXXXX a ) On legal advice XXXX XXXX XXXX for bankruptcy to qualify for approval under a loan modification program in Florida. The program required paying XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX {$1400.00} per month through bankruptcy court and attending mediation for XXXX weeks. We complied with both, and paid a total of {$30000.00}. b ) On XX/XX/XXXX when XXXX denied the loan modification application stating insufficient income. This was most offensive because XXXX purposefully disregarded repeated submission of combined income from XXXX resident family members. They chose to isolate XXXX 's income and use for evaluation. Combined income was {$60000.00}. \nXXXX a ) XXXX XXXX XXXX told our attorney to have XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX bank statements showing that we pay rent to him. We absolutely refused on the legal grounds of falsifying documents and violating the citys residential code about property. b ) XXXX asked the attorney to have XXXX father deposit his social security check into XXXX bank account. We again refused this illegal request, and mutually ended legal services. We filed our XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau complaint against Select Portfolio Servicing for their illegal business practices with purposeful delays in processing approval of our XXXX loan modification application. \nXXXX a ) We received a notice from the court that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Series XXXXXXXX had withdrawn the foreclosure action. b ) We filed a second CFPB complaint against XXXX because they continued the same pattern of illegal business practices of purposeful delay tactics to make our indebtedness impossible to regain and retain ownership of our home. c ) XXXX notified us by telephone that they had approved our HAMP loan modification. But no forms were sent for signatures. Our calls about the matter were ignored for weeks. But in late XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX notified us that our loan and processing was transferred to a new servicer. This was vitriolic. \nXXXX New servicer XXXX XXXX  XXXX . a ) On contact with XXXX  about our approved HAMP loan modification from XXXX XXXX XXXX they told us that we had to start over the application process. b ) We filed a first CFPB complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX. They responded that XXXX  reported our application as incomplete and that the HAMP program ended on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX  stated that they can only offer us an in-house loan modification program. Again this was clearly a collaborative reaction. c ) But We completed and returned the application to XXXX. ( d ) On XX/XX/XXXX we received a letter from XXXX XXXX  XXXX informing us of impending foreclosure proceedings on behalf of their client, XXXX. ( XXXX ) On XX/XX/XXXX we filed a second CFPB complaint against XXXX  and XXXX because it was clear that they were determined to use fraudulent and illegal means to forcefully rob us of our home. ( f ) In late XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX called from XXXX XXXX  XXXX about approval of a loan modification with a trial date of XXXX. But he added that we must pay {$10000.00} to begin the trial period. What ensued was a high volume response from me telling him that his company is attempting to extort money illegally from us, and our intent is to file another CFPB complaint. He quickly got off the telephone and returned soon after with perfuse apologies that he was mistakenly looking at another clients file. \nXXXX a ) We accepted the loan modification from XXXX XXXX XXXX with a written statement that we adamantly deny owing the fraudulent loan balance of {$720000.00}. 27 and we were accepting it under duress. b ) We were convinced that had we rejected it, XXXX would sell our property to a predatory investor for a fraction of what they were demanding from us. During this period It was routine for cars to stop in front of our home and look until we came out our cell phones in hand. We firmly believed then and now that the {$10000.00} demand and enormous loan balance were calculated to force us to reject the loan offer and abandon our home. c ) We contacted XXXX XXXX XXXX and spoke XXXX XXXX about our concerns with the loan and followed up with a letter as well as emails to the XXXX Loss Mitigation and Escalation departments. d ) We asked for a 90-day grace period to appeal the XXXX standard loan modification. XXXX XXXX XXXX responded with a letter stating that our loan was owned by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX for XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX Pass-Through Certificates, Series XXXX and ignored our requests. \nXXXX New servicer Bank of America XXXX This was our second and now current involvement with this bank. ( a ) They charged us {$8500.00} for lender placed hazard insurance on XX/XX/XXXX. We contacted BOA by on-line message to point out the major discrepancy with their price and that of the prior servicer, XXXX XXXX  XXXX  who purchased the LPI for the period XXXX period at {$3700.00}, making Bank of Americas cost over 200 % more. Bank of America stated that it was due to LPI coverage calculated on the loan balance of {$710000.00}. b ) We pointed out that XXXX XXXX  XXXX documented that the LPI was based on the current appraised home value not on the loan balance. We got no response but later noticed a refund of {$8500.00} on the account, and since then the LPI costs are under {$4000.00}. ( b ) In XXXX we filed a CFPB complaint for Bank of America to extend access to a COVID-19 loan deferral program to us. This was done. \nConclusion : Below are the main damages sustained in our fight for justice and to retain our home. 1 ) Intense emotional and mental stress. Writing tens of letters, and making numerous phone calls with no response, as well as filing complaints are very distressing mentally and emotionally. 2 ) Severe financial damage and losses : - This mainly applies to the fraudulent and illegal 52-year loan balance of {$720000.00}, with yearly increasing interest rates. But it also includes the significant costs of almost {$70000.00} we incurred for the legal and business services we used in our struggle to obtain a loan modification and preserve ownership of our home. 3 ) Currently, there is no path for us to access equity in our home or to sell it for a profit due to the colossal mortgage balance. Therefore at XXXX XXXX XXXX and still in grief for my husband who passed away on XX/XX/XXXX, this situation with our home is ominous, but for Gods presence in my life. This severe injustice put the dream of passing on our home free and clear to our sons at risk, unless circumstances change. 4 ) Devastation of our credit : - Even if I wanted to accept a reverse mortgage on my home, I do not qualify for obvious reasons. Yet we remain confident that we will be vindicated and receive justice, whether it comes from a judge in a court of law or by the power of Almighty God.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-06-10T19:27:50.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"33617","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5657129","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2022-06-10T19:01:12.000Z","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":["However, the most pervasive strategy was the purposeful and unconscionable manipulation of processing time to extend it so that the excessive charges, missed payments and miscellaneous fees <em>including</em> monthly inspections of the property will accumulate to a financially insurmountable amount. The ultimate goal was for us lose our home."]},"sort":[5.3457537,"5657129"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3114945","_score":5.0610375,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX To Whom It May Concern : 1 ) On XX/XX/XXXX, I returned home from XXXX vacation at my parents for a week and a half to two letters both dated XX/XX/XXXX, one from Select Portfolio Servicing ( SPS ) and the other from the law firm XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX stating that Select Portfolio Servicing has begun foreclosure action against me. I have several issues with this claim. It is clear that I am a victim of subprime mortgage practices and continue to pay for this. I have fought numerous times to save my home and am getting fed up. The housing market crashed in XX/XX/XXXX-XX/XX/XXXX when I bought my home, and given the current state of the market and the economy it appears again that the home owners will suffer again due to companies getting away with their crimes, as they try and back out of their mistakes to save themselves money as us homeowners lose their homes and lose more money to fight such practices. They yet again applied illegal fees that they continue to get punished for, but nothing happens. I even have proof of them charging me XXXX fees for them to overnight paperwork to me in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. \nWe all know XXXX closed due to their illegal practices and fraudulent mortgages which I believe I am a victim of. We also know that in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX agreed to pay {$40.00} XXXX to settle with the FTC and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ), which charged them with engaging in a number of unfair, deceptive, and illegal practices in the servicing of subprime mortgage loans. The Commission distributed the {$40.00} XXXX as redress to affected consumers. The settlement also imposed a number of specific limitations on XXXX ability to charge fees and engage in certain practices when servicing mortgage loans. In early XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX changed its name to Select Portfolio Servicing , Inc. and XXXX XXXX XXXX, but continue the same practices. Before the new servicer took over, I only owed for XXXX and XXXX. I previously made a {$200.00} payment and then was told that it would not be applied until full payment was received. Another way for them to charge fees. Select Portfolio Servicing may want to foreclose, but the following information my halt that issue. \nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT XXXX DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, AS CONSERVATOR FOR THE FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION AND THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, -against XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX , XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX, XXXX MORTGAGE XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX , and XXXX XXXX , Defendantsthis proves that I was victim of predatory lending and unfair practices, and all these companies are doing is trying to gain as much money along the ride. I have repeatedly asked SPS where my money was going monthly, if they are only the servicer with the answer of we cant release that information over the phone. Or they would say it is going to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who yet again shows no interest in my loan, so they arent getting the money. If I had the ability to pay off my mortgage today, who would get the funds? Who would say my title is clear? Who is to say it is paid in full? Select Portfolio Servicing applies services fees, because the money they receive for the servicing services are not enough, so they tack on these additional fees. When they continue to say that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is the holder, on XX/XX/XXXX I had a representative of XXXX XXXX  on the phone w/ myself and SPS to verify that they have no interest in my loan, and that they are not the holder of my loan. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is also an authorized third party on my account to verify this information. They have even provided a written letter stating that they are not the holder and have no interest in my loan. They do not even know who I am. My guess is it is not XXXX XXXX, but maybe XXXX XXXX XXXX due to this particular complaint ( see attached ). \nXXXX XXXX provided loan-level information to the rating agencies that they relied upon in order to calculate the Certificates assigned ratings, including the borrowers LTV ratio, debt-to-income ratio, owner occupancy status, and other loan-level information described in aggregation reports in the XXXX XXXX. Because the information that XXXX XXXX provided was false, the ratings were inflated and the level of subordination that the rating agencies required for the sale of AAA ( or its equivalent ) certificates was inadequate to provide investors with the level of protection that those ratings signified. As a result, the XXXX paid Defendants inflated prices for purported XXXX  ( or its equivalent ) Certificates, unaware that those Certificates actually carried a severe risk of loss and carried inadequate credit enhancement. XXXX. Since the issuance of the Certificates, the ratings agencies have dramatically downgraded their ratings to reflect the revelations regarding the true underwriting practices used XXXX to originate the mortgage loans, and the true value and credit quality of the mortgage loans. My loan is the interest of XXXX XXXX not XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX and the US Government may have a say in it as well. So is my assignment that was filed on XX/XX/XXXX fraudulent? \n\n\n2 ) On XX/XX/XXXX I received a letter from XXXX that my loan will be serviced by XXXX effective XX/XX/XXXX, and that I should send payment to them. They included my payment amount of {$680.00} which was my original mortgage amount from XX/XX/XXXX. I mailed in the payment to the following company on XX/XX/XXXX.  And will mail my XXXX payment today, XX/XX/XXXX. So how is SPS trying to collect when they no longer have the standing? \n3 ) The welcome letter from XXXX stated that the holder of my loan was XXXX, not XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as Trustee on Behalf of the Holders of the Asset Backed Securities Corporation Home Equity and Trust Series XXXX XXXX Asset Backed Through Certificates Series XXXX XXXX as stated by Select Portfolio Servicing on numerous occasions. \n4 ) I have reached out to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on several occasions to inquire about my loan, and they have provided in writing that they are not the holder and have no interest in my loan. They do not even have record of my name, address, or SSN. I have provided this documentation numerous times to SPS and the CFPB. \n5 ) When my mortgage was supposedly giving to SPS to service, I never received a goodbye letter from XXXX, only a welcome letter from Select Portfolio Servicing stating effective in XX/XX/XXXX that I should mail payments to them. Why am I to trust that Select Portfolio Servicing is the rightful company and not the other company when the same actions were taking by Select Portfolio Servicing? I can not verify w/ Argent as they are no longer in business. \n6 ) On XX/XX/XXXX SPS filed foreclosure documents on my mortgage. However, there was NO assignment giving/attached. Then again on XX/XX/XXXX yet  another attempt to foreclose. When I was attempting to modify and not behind even according to Select Portfolio Servicing. This time they have an assignment attached. Perhaps due to the numerous court rulings stating that they must indeed have this documentation. For instance, in XX/XX/XXXX Judge XXXX XXXX XXXX dismissed a foreclosure case due to the lender not owning/holding the mortgage. In many cases, the trusts try to argue equitable assignment that predates the filing of the foreclosure, but securitized trust can not take an equitable assignment of a mortgage loan. So how does SPS have standing? How does XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX have standing? In fact, who has standing? SPS? XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX? The new servicer? My assignment was dated XX/XX/XXXX and notarized for that date according to XXXX XXXX and XXXX and SPS. However, said assignment was not filed in XXXX County Oklahoma until XX/XX/XXXXafter the first attempt to foreclose. According to 46-13. Assignments of existing mortgages Recording within four months All assignments of mortgages at present existing, bearing date prior to the taking effect of this act, shall within four ( 4 ) months next succeeding the taking effect of this act be recorded in the proper county of this state, in accordance with the provisions of Section 1. Now if my loan was assigned in XX/XX/XXXX, why was it not filed with XXXX County until XX/XX/XXXX, that is two ( 2 ) years not four ( 4 ) months? \n7 ) When I applied for loss mitigation or mortgage assistance, I was recently denied for anything other than a repayment plan that was far more than any of my mortgage payments over the past 12 years. I asked to see the originators or even the holders guidelines for modification and have yet to see this. I honestly do not believe they know who to ask about modification. \n8 ) When XXXX XXXX ( Select Portfolio Servicings parent company ) gets in a bind with the Courts, SPS sends out a letter that there are escrow shortages to increase rates. Which they know will force people into foreclosure so that they can get one lump sum and write it off on their books and collect that money. Or they simply lie and apply fees that are illegal. According to XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX, XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Asset Backed Through Certificates Series XXXX XXXX was purchased by XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX not XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nI think that since XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX owns my loan, you all wont tell me because of the above mentioned lawsuit and/or action. \n\nI have attached documentation and will continue this matter in court if necessary. I will also compile all complaints against Select Portfolio Servicing and their lies. I will subpoena all necessary parties, XXXX XXXX, Select Portfolio Servicing, my new servicing, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, The US Government, and whoever else says they own, or have interest in my loan. There is no confidence of ultimate homeownership when it comes to these subprime mortgages hence the housing crisis of XX/XX/XXXX. If I need to provide more documentation and proof of even payments, complaints, unnecessary illegal fees, I can and I will. So I ask, who owns my mortgage? Who is receiving funds? Who is to say that my loan is paid in full? Who has true legal standing to foreclose if it were necessary? I did not attach all 100+ pages of the complaint and lawsuit against XXXX XXXX from the United States District Court XXXX District of New York XXXX but I can and will if needed. I can also file that information as evidence in any necessary court proceedings.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-01-02T22:01:02.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"73071","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3114945","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","date_received":"2019-01-02T21:39:36.000Z","state":"OK","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["As a result, the XXXX paid Defendants inflated prices for purported XXXX  ( or its equivalent ) Certificates, unaware that those Certificates actually carried a severe <em>risk</em> of loss and carried inadequate credit enhancement. XXXX."]},"sort":[5.0610375,"3114945"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":29,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":29}]}},"product":{"doc_count":29,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":17,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":13},{"key":"Other type of mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":2},{"key":"International money transfer","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":1},{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Auto debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mortgage debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Federal student loan servicing","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":29,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":12,"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":2},{"key":"Foreclosure","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Application denials","doc_count":1},{"key":"Negative impact of inaccurate appraisal","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Payment process","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":1,"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":1}]}},{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue with the loan closing","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Need information about your loan balance or loan terms","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"False statements or representation","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Attempted to collect wrong amount","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing the loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with additional products or services purchased with the loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money was not available when promised","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 when making payments","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"You never received your bill or did not know a payment was due","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Can't stop withdrawals from your account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay your loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Denied request to lower payments","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":29,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":27},{"key":"No","doc_count":2}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":29,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":28},{"key":"Untimely response","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":29,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":29}]}},"company":{"doc_count":29,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","doc_count":3},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"Rocket Mortgage, LLC","doc_count":2},{"key":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","doc_count":2},{"key":"Atlantic Union Bankshares, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIFTH THIRD FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA","doc_count":1},{"key":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","doc_count":1},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"LD Holdings Group, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Law Offices of Les Zieve","doc_count":1},{"key":"MECHANICS BANK","doc_count":1},{"key":"MOHELA","doc_count":1},{"key":"PLANET HOME LENDING, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ria Envia, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Southern Auto Finance Co","doc_count":1},{"key":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"Winklevoss Exchange LLC","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":29,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":5},{"key":"GA","doc_count":3},{"key":"FL","doc_count":2},{"key":"IL","doc_count":2},{"key":"NY","doc_count":2},{"key":"AL","doc_count":1},{"key":"CO","doc_count":1},{"key":"DE","doc_count":1},{"key":"KY","doc_count":1},{"key":"MD","doc_count":1},{"key":"MN","doc_count":1},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":1},{"key":"OH","doc_count":1},{"key":"OK","doc_count":1},{"key":"PR","doc_count":1},{"key":"TN","doc_count":1},{"key":"TX","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA","doc_count":1},{"key":"WI","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":29,"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":7},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":3}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":29,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American","doc_count":5},{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":4},{"key":"Older American, Servicemember","doc_count":2}]}}},"_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":[5.0610375,"3114945"]}}}