Consumer complaint received 2023-07-10
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: GA
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Medical debt
Issue: False statements or representation
Sub-issue: Attempted to collect wrong amount

Complaint:
So, as the CFPB does not handle individual claims, the issue of Wells Fargo Bank ( XXXX ) and the XXXX settlement should have addressed my Dept of VA XXXX and XXXX other loans that after XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) was declared a " failed bank '' on XX/XX/XXXX, and no longer a member of MERS could not transfer the Assignment of Deed of Trust through MERS per NE Statute 76-238 which they did with XXXX loans in XXXX XXXX Register of Deeds Office alone , as the legal transfers of the liens occurred after XX/XX/XXXX, and were not a part of the sale of assets to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) as these were Fed Gov backed mortgage loans, that as with the millions of XXXX XXXX XXXX pooled loans that Wells does own and service it had a duty to know that all the loans were accepted into the pooling with the required UCC3 procedure that takes away the ownership of the mortgage Note when the Notes are endorsed in blank and relinquished to XXXX for the underlying collateral for the securities. Wells did receive most all of the assignments from XXXX to XXXX XXXX Fed Gov backed mortgage loans through XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, which were done without a sale occurring between XXXX and XXXX because the Dept of VA & FHA loans were pooled into the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which the FDIC was the receiver of these mortgage serviced loans. Wells in just XXXX XXXX had FDIC sign XXXX XXXX loans to Wells and XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX loans over to Wells when in fact those banks were sold and an assignment could not be assigned to Wells when Wells did not purchase the loans and neither could any other entity claim ownership as the XXXX XXXX loans were after XXXX stopped existing and had no financial interest in the loan and if there was a depute the UCC9 procedure was required as the UCC3 procedure was used to transfer the mortgage Note to XXXX XXXX. The XXXX XXXX XXXX loans as with the Holm v Wells ( Missouri ) could not be transferred as Wells could not provide the court with proof of ownership which led to it lost of the case. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) had XXXX loans in my loan and XXXX XXXX FHA that were assigned to Wells after XXXX was declared a failed bank and the bank was sold without having these loans purchased as they were XXXX pooled and the ROBO assignment of Deed of Trust recorded does not present evident of a purchase and is why MERS was used to deflect from the fact that these were XXXX XXXX Fed Gov loans that originated by XXXX and sold to XXXX under the correspondent agreement between XXXX and XXXX. Now this is just XXXX XXXX out of XXXX counties in the US. Wells who keeps answering my complaints as if they were authorized as a mortgage servicer for XXXX XXXX that the claim was the investor owner of the mortgage debt, but they entered themself on the lien as the owner of the debt, which a servicer that not the owner of the debt can not replace itself as the " Holder in due course '' in registering a lien because it cause the county to believe that Wells purchased the Debt from XXXX which did not happen, and that at the time of the foreclosure it looked as if Wells was the owner of the debt. At the time of the foreclosure XXXX XXXX was in possession of the mortgage Note which was endorsed in blank, but the fact that XXXX had not sold the loan on or before XX/XX/XXXX, without completing the term of the mortgage loan contract, makes that document stop being a valid loan because the counterparty in XXXX does not exist. What is Wells having enforced on XX/XX/XXXX, when it accepted the foreclosure sale amount from the Dept of VA who suppose to be the debt holder when we know for a fact that the US Congress does not authorize XXXX XXXX to buy or sell a mortgage loan! Wells only seems to response to court cases to address the full scope of the their crimes as with the recent CFPB Consent OrdeXXXX where first it states only XXXX victims that it confess XXXX too, when the total reached XXXX victims that had already been identified by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXn XXXX XXXX when these victims were paid between {$6000.00} and {$3000.00} for not receiving a HAMPs modification. Wells who acts discriminatively against the military families refused to stop foreclosing on Dept of VA borrowers violating XX/XX/XXXX, VA XXXX XXXX, which require that both the XXXX and VA XXXX " must '' be underwritten before a foreclosure could be considered, but Wells who refused to underwrite the HAMPs which were protected by TARP, gives as a reason for foreclosing. that they did not have instructions from US Treasury for the underwriting requirements but had the instruction that they could not consider a foreclosure until the underwriting were conducted! Wells as with the XXXX victims denied a TARP protected HAMPs when there are at least XXXX Dept of VA homeowners that XXXX would have been servicing that were illegally foreclosed in XXXX alone not counting victims from XXXX when Wells stopped underwriting Dept of VA borrowers for XXXX. As Wells had confess to not properly underwriting victims starting in XXXX, we know from HUD investigation that Wells started not underwriting in XXXX the Dept of VA loans which led to the question with the class-action lawsuit and CFPB Consent Order why did not the violations committed by Wells not go back to XXXX, as if people did not file for bankruptcy then or as if there was no requirement in XXXX for the bank to underwrite and XXXX a HAMP or FHA HAMP ? Wells charged Dept of VA borrowers more for refinancing, and did not underwrite for the HAMP and VA HAMP or vehicle loans or insurances or repossession of autos, were Wells is at war with those who have served this Nation!

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