Consumer complaint received 2018-04-04
Company: Fay Servicing, LLC
State: CA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process

Complaint:
ATTACHMENT 1 to Administrative Complaint Written Explanation of Facts With References to Attached Documentary Proof A. OVERVIEW 1. I, XXXX XXXX, and my family have lived in our home, located at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, CA, XXXX for more than 20 years. 

2. Back in XX/XX/XXXX, I was ensnared in a sub-prime, negative amortization refinance loan by XXXX, even though my credit score was over 820 at the time. 

[ ATTACHMENT 2, Certified Forensic Loan Audit ] 3. Then XXXX XXXX XXXX, ( XXXX ),  claimed it took over my loan from XXXX, and XXXX gave me a sub-prime, negative amortization refinance loan, even though my credit score was about 820 at the time.

[ ATTACHMENT 2, Certified Forensic Loan Audit ] 4. I faithfully paid my mortgage month after month and year after year, including up until the time that Fay Servicing , LLC, ( " Fay '' ), began to service the loan in XX/XX/XXXX. However, the transfer in servicing from XXXX to Fay in XX/XX/XXXX is where the serious trouble began. 

[ ATTACHMENTS 3, 4 and 5, XXXX notice of Transfer from XXXX to Fay ; Fay notice of Transfer from XXXX to Fay ; Fay Debt Validation Notice ] 5. During Fay 's servicing tenure ( which continues ), I was subjected to, among other things, dual tracking, the mishandling of my account and modification applications, breaches of agreements, and debt collection violations. For example, between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, Fay prepared and sent ( or recorded ) numerous documents purporting to state the amount owed by me ( the loan status ), but these documents contained widely varying, inconsistent and truly inexplicable amounts : a. XX/XX/XXXX, Fay said the current amount owed was {$770000.00}, with {$5300.00} in monthly mortgage payments, ( Att. 2 ) ; b. XX/XX/XXXX, Fay said the past-due amount owed was now {$16000.00}, ( Att. 6 ) ; c. XX/XX/XXXX, Fay said the past-due amount owed was now {$21000.00}, ( Att. 7 ) ; d. XX/XX/XXXX, Fay said the past-due amount owed was {$21000.00}, ( Att. 8 ) ; e. XX/XX/XXXX, Fay said the past-due amount owed was now {$55000.00}, ( Att. 9 ) ; f. XX/XX/XXXX, Fay said the past-due amount owed was now {$65000.00}, ( Att. 10 ) ; g. XX/XX/XXXX, Fay said the past-due amount owed was now {$60000.00}, ( Att. 11 ) ; h. XX/XX/XXXX, Fay said the past-due amount owed was now {$71000.00}, ( Att. 12 ) ; i. XX/XX/XXXX, Fay said the past-due amount owed was now {$55000.00}, ( Att. 13 ) ; ( the same sum Fay claimed was owed on XX/XX/XXXX ( two months prior ). 
j. XX/XX/XXXX, Fay said the past-due amount owed was now {$77000.00}, ( Att. 14 ) ; k. XX/XX/XXXX, Fay said the past-due amount owed was now {$74000.00}, ( Att. 15 ) ; l. XX/XX/XXXX, Fay said the past-due amount owed was now {$87000.00}, ( Att. 16 ) ; m. XX/XX/XXXX, Fay said the past-due amount owed was now {$85000.00}, ( Att. 17 ) [ ATTACHMENTS 2-17 ] 6. Neither Fay nor any other entity has competent and reliable evidence to substantiate their claim that I defaulted on the loan or that they have the right to foreclose.

7. Fay refused to accept payments from me not once but on two separate occasions, and Fay did this before the debt had been accelerated.

[ ATTACHMENTS 18 & 19 ] 8. Fay offered me a foreclosure prevention alternative in writing in mid-XX/XX/XXXX, and gave me until XX/XX/XXXX to accept and move towards a permanent loan modification. 

[ ATTACHMENTS 20 & 21 ] 9. Rather than honor their promise, Fay instead caused a notice of default and election to sell to be signed and recorded with the County Recorder 's Office on XX/XX/XXXX, nearly a month before the XX/XX/XXXX, deadline to accept the foreclosure prevention alternative. 

[ ATTACHMENT 9 ] 10. So Fay misidentified the facts of my loan, the 	hey claim I owe, ( repeatedly ), wrongfully twisted me into what they claimed was a default on my loan, then, Fay offered me a modification that INCREASED my interest rate from about 4.00 % to over 6.78 %, that INCREASED my monthly payments from {$5300.00} to about {$6500.00}, ( an {$1100.00} increase ), and Fay recorded a Notice of Default almost a month before the time I had to accept this modification offer even expired.

11. The fact that Fay servicing later rescinded the Notice of Default did not remedy the issue caused namely, the issue of making it impossible to accept the modification offer by recording a notice of default prior to the time I had to make a payment expired, thus bringing into play Fays own policies that PROHIBIT Fay from accepting anything but payment of all claimed arrears in full, ( meaning not just a monthly payment ), after they have recorded a Notice of Default.

12. This all violates the express provisions of the Deed of Trust ( specifically paragraph 22 ) which states that the debt may not be accelerated until notice of intent to do so is given and the date specified in the notice has passed. This violates California law, Federal law and this violates the consent orders against Fay. 
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- B. FACTS AND DOCUMENTARY PROOF 13. The original issue was the illegal, sub-prime, negative amortization loan XXXX ensnared me in, despite my XXXX credit score. XXXX took over from there, and even with XXXX supervising the refinance, XXXX had me in a 5 year interest only loan, which again was a sub-prime, negative amortization loan, despite my XXXX credit score.

[ ATTACHMENT 2 ] 14. I made every one of my monthly payments, and then XXXX issued me a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, stating that the servicing rights had been sold to Fay Servicing , LLC. 

[ ATTACHMENT 3 ] 15. However, before I received the XX/XX/XXXX letter, I attempted to make the monthly payment to XXXX as I had every month for several years while XXXX serviced the loan, but XXXX refused to accept it, claiming it no longer serviced my loan. 

16. I was told by the XXXX representative that Fay was the new servicer of the loan, and provided me with a phone number to call. I called and the Fay representative told me they had no record of my loan and nothing that matched my account number.

17. As of the point in time when XXXX wrongfully refused to accept my payment, my loan was current and not in default. 

18. Fay then sent me a debt validation notice dated XX/XX/XXXX, and a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX ( which I did not receive until almost a week later, and after XXXX had refused to accept my XX/XX/XXXX payment ), incorrectly identifying the date and loan number of my loan, stating my loan had been sold on XX/XX/XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX   XXXX XXXX, by XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, as Legal Title Trustee ( XXXX ). 

[ ATTACHMENTS 4 and 5 ] 19. Fay 's statement was at odds with the information contained in the public property records, as no assignment from XXXX to XXXX existed. There was an assignment of the interests in the Deed of Trust alone, ( meaning, without any interests in the Promissory Note which the deed of trust purportedly secured ), from XXXX   XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as Nominee for XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX   XXXX, XXXX, its successors and assigns, which was recorded back in XXXX. 

[ ATTACHMENT 20, Assignment # 1 of only the Deed of Trust-XXXX to XXXX ] 20. Six months later than as represented by Fay Months later, on XX/XX/XXXX, an Assignment was finally executed, but the Assignment stated XXXX assigned the Deed of Trust alone and not any interests in the Promissory Note to the XXXX securitized trust. Worse, this Assignment was not recorded in the public property records of the XXXX XXXX County Recorders Office until XX/XX/XXXX. 

[ ATTACHMENT 21, Assignment # 2 of only the Deed of Trust, XXXX to XXXX ] 21. In a XX/XX/XXXX, dated letter to me with the title, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) Validation Notice, Fay made the following statements : a. The letter reflected the " amount of your debt as of XX/XX/XXXX '' ; b. It was " collecting the debt on behalf of : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as Legal Title Trustee '' ; c. '' Current Monthly Payment Amount : {$5300.00} '' ; d. '' Escrow Balance : {$1400.00} '' ; e. '' Current Unpaid Accrued Interest : {$0.00} '' ; and f. '' Late Charges : {$0.00}. '' [ ATTACHMENT 5 ] 22. Notwithstanding the confusion, I arranged for, and Fay agreed to accept my monthly payments in the amount of {$5300.00} beginning on XX/XX/XXXX. I made these payments each month, working on a loan modification application with Fay.

23. On XX/XX/XXXX, Fay wrote to me about my request for a loan modification stating that it had received the documentation I submitted that was associated with [ my ] Borrower Assistance Package, '' and went on to state that no other documents were needed at that time.

[ ATTACHMENT 22 ] 24. Directly conflicting with Fay 's XX/XX/XXXX, letter just three weeks earlier, advising me that my modification application package was complete, on XX/XX/XXXX Fay wrote to me and informed me that after researching my account Fay determined that I " did not qualify for a modification through the Making Home Affordable ( " MHA '' ) modification program '' because of my " failure to submit a completed initial package in the time-frame requested. '' [ ATTACHMENT 23 ] 25. Even worse, that very same day, ( XX/XX/XXXX ), Fay sent me another letter acknowledging its receipt of my prior submission of a Borrower Assistance Package and further acknowledging that Fay had told me previously that it had received all the necessary documentation to consider my modification request. Fay then directly contradicted this statement, and claimed that additional documents were actually required, and the documentation must be received by XX/XX/XXXX. 

[ ATTACHMENT 24 ] 26. On XX/XX/XXXX, Fay sent another letter to me, this one entitled " NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND INTENT TO ACCELERATE ''. This letter stated that me was in default under my loan and that, as of that date, the total amount required to cure the default is {$21000.00} '' and that amount needed to be paid by XX/XX/XXXX. 

[ ATTACHMENT 8 ] 27. Characteristically there was no explanation as to how they planned to reconcile telling me categorically that I did not qualify for a modification because I had failed to timely submit the necessary documents, yet I previously had submitted all required documents and was simply waiting on an official determination of my eligibility from Fay, and further, that I was in default now, by over {$20000.00}, and must pay immediately.

28. On XX/XX/XXXX Fay sent me another letter, this one notifying me that it would not accept payments on my account because my account was " in an active pre foreclosure or foreclosure status. '' Along with this letter, Fay returned to me the cashier 's check for {$5300.00} I had sent in XX/XX/XXXX. 

[ ATTACHMENT 18 ] 29. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, its Attorney In Fact, executed a Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust ( " ADOT2 '' ). By way of this document, XXXX purported to assign the Deed of Trust, but not the Promissory Note to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as Legal Title Trustee. The ADOT2 was not recorded with the XXXX XXXX County Recorder 's Office until XX/XX/XXXX. 

[ ATTACHMENT 21 ] 30. On XX/XX/XXXX Fay sent me another letter, this one acknowledging receipt of my loan modification documentation and stating affirmatively yet again that it had " determined that [ my ] Loss Mitigation Application is complete .... Fay further stated it would evaluate my application and notify me of its determination within thirty days of its receipt of the application.

[ ATTACHMENT 25 ] 31. On XX/XX/XXXX, Fay sent a letter to me acknowledging I had written and expressed concern about an error in the servicing of my account, and that Fay would respond within 30 days with its resolution. 

[ ATTACHMENT 26 ] 32. On XX/XX/XXXX, Fay sent me another letter which purported to recap a series of communications with me regarding my loan modification request. This letter acknowledged receipt my loss mitigation package on XX/XX/XXXX, stated that Fay had sent an incomplete package notice on XX/XX/XXXX, and that Fay had received the documents from me and thereafter acknowledged this in a " Complete Package Notice '' dated XX/XX/XXXX. However, Fay then contradicted this stating in the same XX/XX/XXXX, letter that Fay actually did not have a complete package and that it had sent notice of such on XX/XX/XXXX, but that Fay then did receive the requested documents from me on XX/XX/XXXX. Finally, this letter said I should allow thirty days for the evaluation to be completed and an " Evaluation Letter '' sent.

[ ATTACHMENT 27 ] 33. On XX/XX/XXXX, I Fay sent me two separate letters. In the first, Fay thanked me for contacting it about my mortgage, stated that I was " eligible for a Fay Servicing Short Sale, '' and further stated that the offer must be accepted by XX/XX/XXXX. 

34. This letter and its claims of a short sale were materially false. The value of my property exceeded the amount owed, and this fact alone makes a short sale impossible. However, this letter demonstrates Fay 's consistent and characteristically slip-shod and indifferent manner in which Fay serviced my loan.

[ ATTACHMENT 28 ] 35. In the second, Fay falsely alleged difficulties in communicating with me. Fay said that it had " attempted to contact [ me ] by first class mail and on at least three occasions by phone to discuss and assess your financial situation and to explore options that may be available to you to avoid foreclosure. Despite these attempts, [ Fay ] have been unable to contact [ me ] as of this date. '' This was patently untrue as I had been in repeated contact with Fay about my loan, with Fay literally acknowledging an active communication stream of written documents from and to me.

[ ATTACHMENT 29 ] 36. These letters are clear proof of Fay unnecessarily and baselessly pushing and pulling me in multiple and contradictory directions, causing confusion, ambiguity and uncertainty for me and my family and we desperately have been working to RESOLVE our home loan issues. 

37. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX authored a letter to me. The letter stated that XXXX had been " authorized by the Servicer/Creditor to initiate foreclosure of a Deed of Trust associated with a real property loan and stated that the current creditor to whom the Debt was owed was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX BY XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, AS LEGAL TITLE TRUSTEE. Further, that the loan is being serviced by FAY SERVICING LLC. '' ( Emphasis is original ). The letter went on to state that " [ w ] e have been advised by our client that the amount of the debt as of the date of this Notice according to the records of our client is {$790000.00}. '' Further, that as of the date of the letter, the purported owner of my loan was the XXXX securitized trust, not the USROF securitized trust which Fay previously stated and which was on the officially recorded Assignments of Deed of Trust in the County Recorders office.

[ ATTACHMENT 30 ] 38. On XX/XX/XXXX, Fay sent me another entitled " Notice of Sale of Ownership of Mortgage Loan, '' stating that my loan had been sold on XX/XX/XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

[ ATTACHMENT 31 ] 39. Again this information is contrary to the public records indicating that as of this date the purported legal owner of my loan was the XXXX XXXX securitized trust, not the USROF securitized trust. 

40. On XX/XX/XXXX, in response its XX/XX/XXXX letter and within the time for doing so as stated therein, my attorney wrote to XXXX disputing the nature, extent and validity of the alleged debt. 

[ ATTACHMENT 32 ] 41. Attempting to fix the record title, a third Assignment was executed on XX/XX/XXXX, purporting to assign the Deed of Trust, ( but not the Promissory Note ), from XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, ( hereinafter, XXXX XXXX ), with this third Assignment recorded in the public land records of the XXXX XXXX County Recorders Office on XX/XX/XXXX. 

[ ATTACHMENT 33, Assignment # 3 of only the Deed of Trust, XXXX to XXXX XXXX ] 42. Fay then sent me a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX. This letter " congratulated '' me on being " approved to enter into a trial period plan under the XXXX XXXX. '' Fay had finally approved a loan modification and foreclosure prevention alternative for me, presumably with the approval of whomever was the legal owner of the loan at that time. According to Fay 's  letter, in order to accept the offer, me had to make a payment of {$5600.00} by XX/XX/XXXX, and then had to make two more payments of the same amount on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, at which point I would " qualify for a permanent modification .... '' ( emphasis in original ). 

[ ATTACHMENT 34 ] 43. But Fay contradicted itself once again for in another part of the same letter, Fay said ACT NOW TO AVOID FORECLOSURE! MAKE YOUR TRIAL PERIOD PAYMENT NO LATER THAN : XX/XX/XXXX! ( emphasis in original ). The letter continued, cautioning me that If each trial period payment is not received by Fay Servicing , LLC in the month in which it is due, your loan will not be modified under the terms described in this offer. '' ( italics added ). Thus, according to the plain and express written terms of the Fay offer, I had until XX/XX/XXXX, to make the first trial period payment. 

[ ATTACHMENT 34 ] 44. Notwithstanding Fay 's XX/XX/XXXX letter offering me a foreclosure prevention alternative ( a trial period plan ), and before the XX/XX/XXXX deadline for the first payment, on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX executed a Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust ( NOD1 ).

[ ATTACHMENT 9 ] 45. XXXX executed the NODl despite having been put on notice months earlier that I disputed the nature, extent and validity of the alleged debt and that there were questions about the documentation and information regarding the transfers, sales and assignments of both the note and deed of trust for my loan. 

[ ATTACHMENTS 2-17 and 32 ] 46. The NOD1 was recorded on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX, stated I owed the sum of {$55000.00} as of XX/XX/XXXX, and was accompanied by a Declaration of Compliance under Civil Code 2923.55 ( c ) executed by Fay on XX/XX/XXXX, which falsely certified that Fay had contacted the me to assess my financial situation and to explore options for avoiding foreclosure and that at least thirty days had passed since the initial contact was made.

[ ATTACHMENT 9 ] 47. XX/XX/XXXX, Fay sent me another letter contradicting their trial plan offer. This letter stated that my loss mitigation package was incomplete, and that I had until XX/XX/XXXX, to provide the requested documents. 
[ ATTACHMENT 35 ] 48. Fay then sent me a mortgage statement dated XX/XX/XXXX which stated the total amount due was {$65000.00}. 

[ ATTACHMENT 10 ] 49. On XX/XX/XXXX, Fay sent another letter to me. Fay now stated that its records showed my loan was past due and that I needed to pay {$60000.00}.

[ ATTACHMENT 11 ] 50. Fay sent me a mortgage statement dated XX/XX/XXXX and therein stated the total amount due was {$71000.00}. 

[ ATTACHMENT 12 ] 51. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX, on behalf of XXXX, signed another Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust, which was recorded with the XXXX XXXX County Recorder 's Office on XX/XX/XXXX ( the " NOD2 '' ). NOD2 was accompanied by the very same Declaration of Compliance which had accompanied NOD1.

[ ATTACHMENT 13 ] 52. Although impossible, NOD2 said that as of XX/XX/XXXX ( nearly two months after the date in NODI ), me owed the sum of $ XXXX-the exact same figure alleged to have been owed two months earlier, and an amount less than those stated in Fay 's XX/XX/XXXX letter and Fay 's XX/XX/XXXX mortgage statement. 

[ ATTACHMENT 13 ] 53. In an undated letter ( the envelope for which was postmarked XX/XX/XXXX ), Fay informed me that my mortgage had been referred to foreclosure proceedings and the letter was being sent " to comply with the requirements of California Civil Code 2924.9. '' [ ATTACHMENT 36 ] 54. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX, on behalf of XXXX, signed a Notice of Rescission of Notice of Default ( " NORI '' ) which was recorded with the XXXX XXXX County Recorder 's Office on XX/XX/XXXX, and pursuant to which NODI was rescinded. No one provided me with a copy of NORI, nor did they otherwise advise me that NOD1 had been rescinded.

[ ATTACHMENT 37 ] 55. That same day, ( XX/XX/XXXX ), XXXX XXXX, on behalf of XXXX, signed a Notice of Rescission of Notice of Default ( " NOR2 '' ) which was recorded with the XXXX XXXX County Recorder 's Office on XX/XX/XXXX and pursuant to which NOD2 was rescinded. No one provided me with a copy of NOR2, nor did they otherwise advise me that NOD2 had been rescinded.

[ ATTACHMENT 38 ] 56. Fay then sent me a mortgage statement dated XX/XX/XXXX which said the total amount due was $ XXXX-an increase of more than {$20000.00} since NOD2 was issued just eighteen ( 18 ) days earlier.

[ ATTACHMENT 14 ] 57. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX, on behalf of XXXX, authored a letter to me. The letter stated that XXXX had been " authorized by the Servicer/Creditor to initiate foreclosure of a Deed of Trust associated with a real property loan '' and stated that the " current creditor to whom the Debt was owed was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX BY XXXX XXXX   XXXX XXXX, AS LEGAL TITLE TRUSTEE. The loan is being serviced by FAY SERVICING LLC. '' ( Emphasis is original ). The letter went on to state that " We have been advised by our client that the amount of the debt as of the date of this Notice according to the records of our client is {$810000.00}. '' [ ATTACHMENT 39 ] 58. The next day, XX/XX/XXXX, Fay sent me a letter entitled " NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND INTENT TO ACCELERATE ''. This letter stated that I was in default under my loan and that, as of that date, the total amount required to cure the default is {$74000.00} '' and that amount needed to be paid by XX/XX/XXXX. ( Id. ) [ ATTACHMENT 15 ] 59. Previously Fay had stated in its XX/XX/XXXX mortgage statement that the amount due was {$77000.00}. 

[ ATTACHMENT 14 ] 60. This discrepancy in correspondence separated by thirteen ( 13 ) days was, as was Fay 's normal business practices, ( at least regarding me and my loan ), and like the other serious issues in their recitation of the facts, this grievous error was also left unexplained.

61. On XX/XX/XXXX, Fay sent me another letter, this one notifying me that it would not accept payments on my account because my account was " in an active pre foreclosure or foreclosure status. '' Along with this letter, Fay returned to me the check for {$5300.00} I had sent to Fay in XX/XX/XXXX. 

[ ATTACHMENT 19 ] 62. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX, on behalf of XXXX, signed another Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust, which was recorded with the XXXX XXXX County Recorder 's Office on XX/XX/XXXX ( the " NOD3 '' ). 

[ ATTACHMENT 17 ] 63. NOD3 was accompanied a Declaration of Compliance under Civil Code 2923.55 ( c ) executed by Fay on XX/XX/XXXX and certifying that Fay had contacted the me to assess my financial situation and to explore options for avoiding foreclosure and that at least thirty days had passed since the initial contact was made. NOD3 stated that the amount due as of XX/XX/XXXX was {$85000.00}. Id. 

64. This contradicted the Statement from Fay dated the same day, ( XX/XX/XXXX ), which claimed the past-due amount was {$87000.00} [ ATTACHMENT 16 ] 65. On XX/XX/XXXX, a Consent Order was entered against Fay as part of a proceeding before the United States Consumer Finance Protection Bureau ( the " Consent Order '' ).

[ ATTACHMENT 40 ] 66. The Consent Order grew out of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau 's ( " CFPB '' ) review of Fay 's mortgage serving practices, more specifically Fay 's  handling of loan modification applications and its compliance with various laws enacted to protect borrowers. The results of the CFPB 's investigation revealed numerous violations of law and either an absence of or inadequate guidance given to Fay 's personnel with regard to how to handle loss mitigation applications such as those for a loan modification. ( Id. ) 67. Among other violations, the CFPB found that Fay routinely failed to send or to timely send borrowers acknowledgment notices in response to loan modification applications, failed to send or to timely send borrower 's evaluation notices within thirty days of its receipt of a loan modification package and failing to provide borrowers with the information necessary to provide any allegedly missing or additional documents or information the borrower needed to submit to complete the modification application. Id.

68. Fay is currently attempting to sell my home, with a pending Trustees Sale.

[ ATTACHMENT 41 ] 69. I have filed suit in Court, I obtained a Temporary Restraining Order to stop the sale, but the trial court denied issuing a Preliminary Injunction. My attorney has filed an interlocutory appeal, but a writ of supersedes, to stay the sale, was recently denied by the Court of Appeal.

70. Fay successfully argued that it corrected and remedied the California Homeowners Bill of Rights Act violation by rescinding the Notice of Default. 

71. Thought it may have corrected the issue, it did not, and could not remedy the issue.

72. Fay prevented me from even attempting to accept their, ( what is actually unconscionable ) modification offer. Their servicing practices, as evidenced by the facts, violate both State and Federal law, and require intervention on an Administrative level.

73. To underscore the problem, in response to my attorneys dispute of the debt alleged, two separate versions of my Promissory Note were produced. 

74. The first shows the Promissory Note with an Endorsement signed on behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXX, but the endorsement is in blank. 

[ ATTACHMENT 42 ] 75. The second shows the Promissory Note with the XXXX XXXX   XXXX, marked, VOID, and a Assistant Secretary Certificate is attached, proclaiming that : a. XXXX XXXX was a name used by XXXX XXXX XXXX. ; b. XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, changed its name to XXXX XXXX, XXXX. ; c. Effective XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, converted to XXXX XXXX, XXXX ; d. Effective XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, converted to XXXX XXXX, XXXX, then immediately thereafter, merged with and into XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. 

[ ATTACHMENT 43 ] 76. This Certified representation affixed to the Promissory Note is false, fraudulent, and potentially criminal.

77. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, created a subsidiary, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and through the Securities and Exchange Commission public filings, caused XXXX XXXX XXXX to merge with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. As stated in the filings : AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER, dated as of XX/XX/XXXX ( this Agreement ), among XXXX XXXX XXXX, a Delaware corporation ( Company ), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a Delaware XXXX ( Parent ), and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a Delaware XXXX and wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent ( Merger Sub ). 

1.1 The Merger. ( a ) Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, in accordance with the Delaware XXXX XXXX XXXX ( the DGCL ) and the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act ( the DLLCA ), at the Effective Time, Company shall merge with and into Merger Sub. Merger Sub shall be the Surviving Company in the Merger and shall continue its existence as a limited liability company under the laws of the State of Delaware. As of the Effective Time, the separate corporate existence of Company shall cease.

1.6 Certificate of Formation and Limited Liability Company Agreement of the Surviving Company. At the Effective Time, the certificate of formation of Merger Sub shall, by virtue of the Merger, be amended and restated in its entirety to read as the certificate of formation of Merger Sub in effect immediately prior to the Effective Time, except that Item 1 thereof shall read as follows : The name of the limited liability company is XXXX XXXX XXXX, and as so amended, shall be the certificate of formation of the Surviving Company until thereafter amended in accordance with applicable law. The limited liability company agreement of Merger Sub, as in effect immediately prior to the Effective Time, shall be the limited liability company agreement of the Surviving Company until thereafter amended in accordance with applicable law and the terms of such limited liability company agreement.

[ ATTACHMENTS 44 & 45 ] This is all stated simply as follows : XXXX XXXX XXXX shall merge with and into XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX shall be the Surviving Company, however, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX shall change its name, effective upon the merger, to XXXX XXXX, XXXX. 

78. The SEC Records themselves even show XXXX XXXX, XXXX, to be a simple subsidiary of XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. 

[ ATTACHMENT 46 ] 79. Please help me and my family save our home of over 20 years from this blatantly wrongful, unlawful, and potentially criminal activity of Fay Servicing , LLC.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation