Consumer complaint: Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. and XXXX XXXX XXXX are attempting an unlawful nonjudicial foreclosure on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX based upon a void note and void security deed/contract. 

1. The Loan was bought or sold out of the trust identified in XXXX below and was converted to a 30 year fixed conventional loan on or about late XXXX or early XXXX. The transaction by definition was a refinance of the original table funded adjustable rate loan which is classified as predicator per XXXX by Reg Z, to wit ( unenforceable ). See Exhibit XXXX, loan type. 

2. A foreclosure can not legally take place if the deed and note is for a different loan type than the lender/creditor is trying to collect on. The new 30 year fixed rate loan type must be described in the note and identified in the security instrument. it is not, see Exhibit XXXX, XXXX. We have not signed a new note or deed, and did n't actually sign the original deed and note in its current form, ( THEY ARE FORGERIES ) See Exhibit XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, the actual illegal signatures of the sales manager of the originator. 

A ) UCC XXXX. If illegality or fraud were involved in the original transaction, it can not be proved that the person is entitled to enforce the instrument. See Exhibit XXXX. &, XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( b ). A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection ( a ) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person 's right to enforce the instrument. See Exhibit XXXX, XXXX XXXX. A new 30 year conventional note, security deed, and new disclosures documents should have been executed. However, that never occurred. The current deed and note on record, although void by operation of law under TILA and Reg. Z, is still reflecting the old invalid table-funded predatory note and deed and is being used to try to foreclose. See Exhibit XXXX. 

4. In the foreclosure documents, they are intentionally misrepresenting a material fact to justify a foreclosure. See Exhibit XXXX. In the foreclosure documents SPS Inc. and XXXX XXXX XXXX is says they are operating on behalf of XXXX f/k/a the XXXX, as Trustee for the Certificateholders of CWABS XXXX it is a false statement. For the loan to be held in trust, a re-securitization had to occur, with a new XXXX XXXX number per SEC. 

5. No debt is owed to a party on a note and deed arising out of a " real estate closing '' where there was no loan made between the originator and the " borrower ''. in other words, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a division XXXX was the servicer and owned the of note at closing on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, but was not present or disclosed at closing which means no consummation was made. See the date of the first endorsement on the allonge ( s ) to the note, and see who it was transferred to. See Exhibit XXXX, XXXX. Also note that the mandatory chain of transfer called for in the " XXXX '' was not met. See Exhibit-XXXX. chine of transfer. 

6. The loan is rescinded from its inception, effective by operation of law as of XXXX XXXX, XXXX. See Exhibit XXXX. The lender/creditor failed to respond or otherwise defend in a court of law as required by statute. See US Supreme Court 's mandate in the case XXXX ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). 

7. The U.S Supreme Court found that Section XXXX ( a ) " makes no distinction between disputed and undisputed rescissions ''. therefore, to respond in court in 20 days is not left to the discretion of the lender, it is a statutory requirement. 

8. XXXX XXXX, in the unanimous decision said, " the statute is clear on its face and therefore NOT subject to a judge 's interpretation of it ''. XXXX XXXX also said any attempt to raise " defenses '' to rescissions after 20 days would, if allowed, render the rescission NOT effective by operation of law until a judge reviewed it. Any Judge so ruling would be over-ruling the Supreme Court 

Company response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law