Product: Mortgage

XX/XX/XXXX Property Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, AL XXXX CFPB Complaint ID : ( To be provided ) Copy : XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, NC XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Washington DC XXXX CFPB Complaint : ALABAMA Supreme Court on XXXX XXXX XXXX ruled, among other things, that MERS System of Appointing Agents is Outside the Law Sir : Our additional research reveals that the assignment of mortgage initiated between XXXX, XXXX, ( XXXX  ), Bank of America ( BOFA ) and Countrywide Home Loans ( Countrywide ) was fraudulent and " outside the law '' Relevant facts are as follows : In the original mortgage on this property recorded in the public land records on XX/XX/XXXX the mortgage was designated as a XXXX  mortgage or XXXX  as original mortgagee and XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX ( Hometown ) as the original lender which own the beneficial interest on the promissory note. ( See attachment : Mortgage ). 

Sometime after the mortgage ( security interest ) was recorded, XXXX appears to have sold the Note. We are unable to find any note endorsement, paper or XXXX XXXX of this sale of the note. Later, in the Foreclosure Deed of XX/XX/XXXX, BAC Home Loans ( BAC ) which acquired Countrywide claims ownership of the promissory. ( See Par 3 of attachment : Foreclosure Deed ). 

Because there appears no Note Endorsement from XXXX XXXX Countrywide, Countrywide can not claim ownership of the Promissory Note and certainly could not have legally sold something ( this Note ) to BAC that it did not own. 

Thus the claim of BAC on XXXX XXXX of the Foreclosure Deed that it owned the Promissory Note is a falsity and without basis. As such, the Foreclosure Deed on XX/XX/XXXX in NULL and VOID. 

Assignment of Mortgage The Assignment of Mortgage recorded on XX/XX/XXXX had XXXX pages. Page XXXX and XXXX indicate the Agreement for Signing Authority between XXXX XXXX, ( XXXX ), its subsidiary MERS, Countrywide as Member and XXXX & XXXX XXXX. ( XXXX  ) as Vendor, this is the law firm that appeared to have allowed its employees to be certifying officers for MERS. ( See attachment : Assignment of Mortgage ). 

This Agreement for Signing Authority section was dated around XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX or XXXX years before this Assignment of Mortgage on XX/XX/XXXX. This indicates that if might have been a boilerplate form previously used elsewhere XXXX years prior. 

It should be pointed out that XXXX  has NO ( XXXX ) employees and its parent company XXXX, in a deposition, admitted to having XXXX employees. And yet at XXXX point they are the mortgagee of record on XXXX XXXX mortgages - again with XXXX employees. So through agreement for signing authority they have appointed XXXX people as certifying officers ( based on a testimony of XXXX XXXX XXXX of XXXX ) with essentially no checks, limitations or restrictions that are monitored on the activities of these so-called certifying officers which has resulted in thousands of foreclosure fraud and abuses. 

XXXX XXXX of Appointing Officers is Outside the Law The Alabama Supreme Court on the case of XXXX XXXX XXXX ( No. XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX ) ruled on XXXX XXXX that XXXX system of appointing agents is outside the law. ( See Attachment : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) The portion of AL Supreme Court ruling on this appointing of agents as outside the law reads in part : XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  system of appointing agents is outside the law. 

Thousands of people are authorized to act as certifying officers of XXXX. ( XXXX XXXX ). This term of art has no legal meaning under Alabama law. XXXX XXXX, the CEO for MERS, testified his company has authority to foreclose because of the limited authority of these thousands of certifying officers. ( XXXX XXXX ) and even testified in front of a XXXX XXXX studying this issue that XXXX has granted XXXX people certifying XXXX status. ( XXXX XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX XXXX ). According to XXXX, XXXX provides its members a corporate resolution designating XXXX or more employees of the member as a certifying XXXX. ( XXXX XXXX ). Certifying officers are given authority to act in XXXX areas on behalf of MERS. ( XXXX XXXX ). But nothing in the documentation provided by XXXX  indicates that any certifying officer has or had accurate knowledge of the transfers of XXXX loan. XXXX employee XXXX testified that while he XXXX was a certifying XXXX of XXXX, he did not know exactly what criteria was used to authorize him as a certifying officer or what steps were taken. Instead, he received an email from MERS announcing that he was now a XXXX officer. ( XXXX XXXX ). XXXX XXXX never filled out an application and never filed an affidavit to become a XXXX  certifying officer. ( XXXX XXXX  ). 

The XXXX resolution from XXXX  to XXXX appointing certifying officers, along with the XXXX supplement granting authority to each of the XXXX different legal entities XXXX Mortgage operates under, is vague. What appears to take place is that MERS, an entity that is a nominee of XXXX, gives XXXX a blank slate upon which to write any of its employees it chooses to act on MERS 's behalf. In effect, MERS and XXXX have turned principal/agent law on its head : XXXX, an agent of XXXX, XXXX XXXX the XXXX to act as an agent on its behalf. If both XXXX and XXXX are the agent and the principal, then who is accountable when there is a violation of law? An agent is presumed to intend to bind his principal only and to incur no personal liability and unless an intention to substitute or super add his personal liability for or to that of his principal is clearly shown, XXXX he will not be bound in his individual capacity. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). XXXX argues it is not an agent, but simply a nominee of XXXX. A nominee is generally understood as a person designated to act in place of another. See XXXX 's XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ). But, how can MERS acting in place of XXXX XXXX XXXX 's action in the appointing of certifying officers? Again, XXXX is attempting to stand XXXX letter law on its head. 

Certification of XXXX XXXX XXXX, an employee of XXXX, of the Assignment of Mortgage is invalid, outside the law, and therefore null and void Thus, based on this important Alabama Supreme Court ruling, the signature of XXXX XXXX XXXX, an employee of XXXX is outside the law and therefore null and void. Therefore this Assignment of Mortgage is also null and void and the Foreclosure Deed, by extension, is null and void, as Countrywide had no beneficial interest or ownership on the mortgage. 

No consideration specified in the assignment of mortgage The existence of consideration in contracts or exchange of property is critical to its legality. What was the consideration? What was the value received? How much? This boilerplate language without specifying the actual consideration is sufficient ground, in our view, to make this document VOID. 


SALE OF PROPERTY TO XXXX IS NULL AND VOID Because the BOFA and BAC did not own the mortgage and the promissory note, THE FORECLOSURE SALE OF THE PROPERTY TO XXXX IS NULL AND VOID. 

RESTORE US OR COMPENSATE US FAIRLY We ask CFPB to rescind the illegal sale of the property to XXXX and to restore us to our original position of ownership of the property or compensate us fairly for the value of the property that BOFA/BAC illegally stole from us. 

PUNITIVE DAMAGES We also ask for a punitive damage of {$10.00} XXXX for the psychological, emotional and mental pain and suffering we incurred and have been subjected to because of the fraudulent and illegal foreclosure of our property by BOFA. 

FINE AND PENALTY We also ask the CFPB to impose a fine and penalty of {$5.00} million on BOFA/BAC for their fraudulent falsification of the assignment of mortgage to itself, causing it to be publicly recorded knowing full well that it is a falsified and fabricated document. 

The malicious and illicit intent of BOFA/BAC to cause harm, hardship, pain and suffering to a consumer ( through their fraudulent and illegal foreclosure ) is clear, unambiguous and proven for everyone to see. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX AL XXXX XXXX | XXXX XXXX