Product: Mortgage

On XX/XX/XXXX I noticed Specialized Loan Servicing LLC ( SLS ) that it was in violation of UCC 3-309 ( a ) and ( b ). On XX/XX/XXXX I sent a Notice of Error to SLS regarding said violation. On XX/XX/XXXX I sent a second follow up letter demanding that SLS prove-up its claim. XXXX has refused to acknowledge SLS 's violation of Maryland Code Commercial Law at 3-309 ( a ) and ( b ). SLS has had adequate notice that it is in violation of Maryland Code Commercial Law at 3-309 ( a ) and ( b ) and is therefore complicit in the fraudulent appointment of XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX as alleged substitute trustee. SLS knew that pursuant to UCC 3-309 ( a ), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   has no chain of title and no claim under the alleged deed of trust. SLS knew that it has an obligation to release the lien as it is without basis to enforce it. 
I have repeatedly noticed SLS and XXXX XXXX that Maryland Code Commercial Law states at 3-309 ( a ) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if ( i ) the person was in possession of the instrument and entitled to enforce it when loss of possession occurred ... NOT ONE of the banks in the alleged chain of title was in possession of the note when loss of possession occurred, thus none had power to enforce the note, and none had power to assign it! Each of the Lost Note Affidavits signed by the bankers states clearly that the bank never received the note. I have repeatedly advised SLS of these facts, and SLS has ignored me.

Pursuant to Maryland Code Commercial Law at 3-309 ( a ) all lost note Affidavits filed by XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and others, are false and void, as none of these institutions ever received said note, and therefore were not entitled to enforce said note. Therefore, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was without standing or authority to appoint XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, as substitute trustee. SLS and XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX, are without authority to foreclose. SLS has refused to acknowledge this fact, and has continued its fraudulent claim of authority to collect. 
Maryland Code Commercial Law 3-309 ( b ) and UCC 3-309 ( b ) required SLS and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to prove that the note/security was in its possession at the time it was lost. 3-309 ( b ) states A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection ( a ) must prove the terms of the instrument and the persons right to enforce the instrument. SLS has failed to prove up its/their right to enforce the note. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  has failed to prove-up its claim against my property at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Maryland. Specifically, SLS has failed to prove that it is in compliance with 3-309 ( a ) ; that it was in possession of the instrument and entitled to enforce it when loss of possession occurred ... and it has failed to prove up its claim as required pursuant to 3-309 ( b ) : A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection ( a ) must prove ... the persons right to enforce the instrument. SLS 's continued attempts to collect {$290000.00} that is not owed to SLS or to XXXX XXXX show that it is willfully in violation of UCC 3-309 ( a ) and ( b ) and is actively engaged in mail fraud.