Consumer complaint received 2023-07-11
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: GA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: VA mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process

Complaint:
Wells Fargo Bank ( Wells ) in a unusual procedure was allowed to become the servicer of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX pooled loans and in assigning most all the Deed of Trust over to Wells would present a legal problem if and when ( XXXX ) would fail, because there would be not party with an financial interest legally able to claim a debt due. Wells having millions of XXXX pooled loans that they own and are servicing which in no case that XXXX is the holder of debt on these loans. The Assignment of DOT is placing a lien against the property by the owner of the loan in which no occasion is a nondebt holder allowed to replace itself as the holder of the debt because they are not owned a debt. What occurred is that XXXX wanted to seize XXXX portfolio of XXXX XXXX pooled loans as XXXX was in financial trouble that lead to the bank being seized by the XXXX. So after XX/XX/XXXX, there was no entity that was owned a debt from the Fed Gov backed loan XXXX had in the XXXX XXXX portfolio. The Assignment of DOT that were recorded were not the result of a sale of the debt and could not demand a debt be repaid because there was nothing to be repaid. In order to foreclose XXXX would have to come back to life and have the mortgage Note returned to them by XXXX after it paid it XXXX investor loan back, and have the lien assigned back to them. However, as of today XXXX not come back from the dead and they never sold the debt but were unable to complete the mortgage contract which cause the loan to stop existing because of failure to perform. Wells was collecting payments illegally from XXXX XXXX Fed Gov borrowers starting on XX/XX/XXXX, and taking those payments and passing them through to XXXX XXXX investors from loans that were completed due to the fact the counterparty in XXXX stopped existing. Wells knows XXXX is never an investor/owner of the mortgage loans due to the restriction place on the agency by US Congress XXXX However, when performing a HAMP modification and adjusting the loan payment does not cover what XXXX was obligated to and the only way to cover XXXX obligation was to steal the properties of the homeowner requesting the TARP protected HAMPs modifications! A audit of the mortgage servicing files don't show a pay off of the non-existing XXXX mortgage loans, but will show that XXXX is being paid out of foreclosure proceeds and VA & FHA insurance programs to pay the debt owned by XXXX not for any mortgage loan debt because there is no loan remaining. What happen is one amount of monies in the mortgage servicing account can not pay two almost equal amount of debt as there only one foreclosure proceeds and insurance payout, but two amounts alleged to be due. XXXX paid for the investor loan leaving their XXXX partner in Wells to be paid the remaining amount for servicing service, whipping out the account and paying the allege debt of the homeowner. The account trick is accomplished because there is not XXXX to be paid and no update reported as to the loan debt disposition! XXXX would be the report entity however they don't exist, and this allows the account fraud to be successful. XXXX who was not authorized to act on the mortgage loans and would lose monies if a modification were granted instead with Wells refused to obey XX/XX/XXXX, VA XXXX XXXX which as with the victims of the CFPB Consent Order were denied TARP protection of being granted a HAMP. Wells did not address the violating of rights granted by TARP as Wells received {$25.00} billion in bailout funds from XXXX, yet denied homeowners the same bailout of a lower interest rate in order to make a monthly payment to a debt that could not be confirmed but a solution to whether the debt existed by the homeowner not disputing it but taking the new terms of the modification, that create new titling that the borrowers authorized when agreeing to the modification!

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation