Product: Mortgage

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX & Rubin Lublin , LLC Attorneys at Law has violated FDCPA, Dod Frank Act, RESPA, TILA, and other State consumer and banking laws. On or about XX/XX/XXXX the borrower applied for a home equity loan in the amount of {$14000.00}. XXXX XXXX d/b/a/ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX fruadulently created an interest first refinance loan by fraudulently cutting and pasting parts of the original closing documents to create a fraudulent note and security deed to refinance the 1st mortgage. ( Pay close attention to the misalignment of the  document numbers ( XXXX ) on the Security Deed recorded in XXXX  county Georgia on XX/XX/XXXX ) The borrower filed Chapter XXXX Bankruptcy protection in early XX/XX/XXXX and was later discharged from Chapter XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, stripping the home equity loan and leaving the fraudulently created 1st mortgage. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX sent Loan modification letters to former counsel and unauthorized agent on two ( 2 ) occasions : XX/XX/XXXX & again on XX/XX/XXXX. In that, XXXX has violated the notice and loss mitigation requirements of CFPB final rule 12 CFR 1024.41 ( f ) ( 1 ). Additionally,  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX & Rubin Lublin , LLC has violated 12 CFR 1024.35 ( b ) by stating in its Notice of Default and Intent to Accelerate  dated, XX/XX/XXXX, and Rubin Lublin , LLC 's Notice of Acceleration and Foreclosure dated XX/XX/XXXX, that the borrower was delinquent in the amount of {$2300.00} and again in XXXX 's response to RESPA request date XX/XX/XXXX XXXX wrote, " The loan account is due for XX/XX/XXXX, monthly installment and subsequent installments. '' The mortgage is $ XXXX/mo x 3 mos. = {$1500.00}. NONETHELESS, Attached is proof of borrower 's timely payments from ( XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX ). XXXX has misapplied borrower 's payments and ultimately has violated 12 CFR 1026.13 ( a ) ( 4 ) & ( 12 CFR 1024.35 ( b ) ( 5 ) ). An institution lacks a reasonable basis to impose fees that are not bona fide, such as ( i ) a late fee for a payment that was not late, ( ii ) a charge for a service that a service provider did not actually provide, ( iii ) a default management fee for borrowers who are not delinquent. In that, the BORROWER is NOT Delinquent on Principle, Interest nor Escrow payments. XXXX XXXX XXXX ONLY recently rejected the borrower 's XX/XX/XXXX payment Therefore, the notice it itself in violation of the laws, to include but is not limited FDCPA, RESPA, ITLA, and the Dodd Frank Act. Bayview, refused to discuss the mortgage with borrower over the phone from XX/XX/XXXX up until early XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX refused to discuss the mortgage with borrower, claiming that borrower was represented by an Attorney in bankruptcy, when in fact, the bankruptcy was discharged 4 months prior on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX thereby violation of 12 CFR 1024.41 ( f ) ( 1 ) contributed to this past due balance not being addressed by the borrower  because the borrower was unaware that any past  due balance existed. XXXX refused to inform borrower and did NOT send any notices because XXXX did not update their system to show the Discharge of XX/XX/XXXX. Not until XX/XX/XXXX, no customer service representative would speak to borrower regarding the loan until after that time, although XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX received two ( 2 ) letters from borrower 's former bankruptcy counsel and most recently on XX/XX/XXXX, that he no longer represented borrower and that the bankruptcy was discharged. Additionally, Investigate both XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX & Rubin Lublin , LLC for violations of applicable laws to include but NOT limited to the FDCPA, RESPA, TILA and ultimately this loan is one that should be scrutinized as a violation of Dodd Frank Act. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act devotes more than 200 pages to a section called the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act. It addresses issues as diverse as prepayment  penalties and XXXX drywall. The legislation says its purpose is " to assure that consumers are offered and receive residential mortgage loans on terms that reasonably reflect their ability to repay the loans and that are understandable and not unfair, deceptive or abusive. '' This Lender ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) known to give subprime mortgages to people with good credit who could have qualified for low-rate prime loans. The practice -- called " steering '' -- now is illegal. In a related abuse, mortgage originators sometimes lied to borrowers about their credit, telling borrowers they had low credit scores when they really did n't. On XX/XX/XXXX, there was a Security Deed & Note recorded in the XXXX County, Georgia land records in favor of XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) which is stated to be a New York Corporation. The Note alleges that the Lender is XXXX XXXX XXXX, in which XXXX XXXX has determined did not assign any of the interest in the mortgage ( how could it, as it ( " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX '' ) is a fiction? ). There is evidence to show that XXXX was NOT a New York Corporation at the time the Mortgage was recorded and that this entity did NOT have authority to conduct business in the State of Georgia. XXXX again was used to facilitate ( as a cover for the misdeeds of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX/ XXXX XXXX XXXX ). Under the lending laws of Georgia, loans made in the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX, a New York corporation, between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX are not enforceable. The reason behind that is that a home mortgage lender must have a license to make home loans. There was no license made in the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Also, during this time, no such corporation was in existence, therefore no valid loan could be made in the name of a non-existent lender. In Georgia, if a corporation is not registered with that state, it has no legal capacity to conduct business. That law applies here. Another flaw is that the Mortgage or Deed of Trust named XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as the lender, but then the Note named an entirely different party. Neither the Note or Mortgage should be enforceable! Additionally, neither XXXX or XXXX ever funded the loan made in the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX, a New York Corporation. Because those loans have now been fully repaid by the TARP bailout and the various insurance companies who insured the securitized trusts where the loans were to have been pooled and transferred, but no transfer was ever made. The loans was assigned yet AGAIN on or about XX/XX/XXXX, to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF XXXX, XXXX, ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST XXXX, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, XXXX XXXX, any such assignment, in addition to being fraudulent, and made without consideration, was made after the expiration date of the pooling agreement and was made strictly as a litigation tool to cause the appearance of a proper foreclosure. It should also be noted that any such assignment will show to be made immediately prior to foreclosure previously initiated XXXX XXXX XXXX on or about XX/XX/XXXX, but years after theexpiration date of the pooling agreement. The enforcement and collection of these loans by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Rubin Lublin , LLC, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, et. al means they are collecting this debt to be paid twice, and of course, at tax payers expense. PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENTS the following Attachments AS FILED IN the borrower 's CFPB COMPLAINT # XXXX, filed on XX/XX/XXXX, against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : 1 ) Borrower 's processed checked received and deposited by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX from ( XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX ) 2 ) Borrower 's Discharge Order from Bankruptcy court dated XX/XX/XXXX 3 ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 's letter to unauthorized agent on XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX 4 ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Notices of Default & Intent to Accelerate dated XX/XX/XXXX & Rubin Lublin , LLC Notice Pursuant to FDCPA & Notice of Acceleration and Foreclosure dated XX/XX/XXXX. 5 ) Letter to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX